Joel Wainwright, chair of Ohio State’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, stands in his office on Nov. 2, 2026. Credit: Owen Luo | Lantern Reporter
Tristram McPherson stood at a podium at the Oct. 22 University Senate meeting, sharing a report expressing concerns about the impact on academic freedom of the Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture and Society.?
The center, whose mission is to study and teach civics education, was created by the Ohio Legislature, but many faculty members feel it is slanted toward conservative viewpoints. The senate body charged with exploring those concerns is the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, of which McPherson is a member.
The Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility — or CAFR — investigates concerns about academic freedom, reviews faculty complaints and examines some promotion and tenure disputes. Its recent report on the Chase Center has brought unusual attention to a committee whose work often happens quietly and, in some cases, confidentially.
“Academic freedom is the backbone of the modern university,” CAFR Chair Joel Wainwright said. “If faculty lose academic freedom, the fundamental purpose of the university — its fundamental aims and goals — cannot be fulfilled.”
Established in 1970, CAFR is one of 21 standing and ad hoc committees of the University Senate. Currently, the committee consists of eight faculty members, one graduate student and one staff member. The members meet monthly.
The CAFR’s charge, according to its bylaws, is to “study all conditions which may affect the academic freedom or responsibility of the faculty of the university.”
To carry out that duty, CAFR handles three types of cases. The Chase Center investigation falls under Type 1, the only category initiated by the committee itself.
A Type 1 case usually begins when a committee member raises a concern regarding “any such condition or proposed change which adversely affects academic freedom,” Wainwright said.?
After the concern is proposed, CAFR develops what Wainwright called a “proto-report” that outlines the potential claim.?
“The word ‘proposed’ means it can be before something has actually happened,” Wainwright said.
If the majority of the committee believes the issue needs further examination, a subgroup within the committee revises the text until it formulates a draft report. The draft may undergo several rounds of discussion and revision before CAFR sends it to the University Senate.?
Once a Type 1 report reaches the University Senate, CAFR’s role ends, and the Senate decides whether and how to act.
“Our job is to make a report to the University Senate,” Wainwright said. “What the University Senate does next is out of our hands.”
The public reports debated in the Senate are only a part of CAFR’s work; the committee also processes cases that are confidential, namely Type 2 and Type 3 cases.
Type 2 cases begin when an individual faculty member believes their academic freedom has been infringed. Many concerns may not become formal cases, Wainwright said. He may advise faculty members, help them develop a strategy or direct them to another university process.?
If CAFR accepts a formal complaint, the committee investigates and attempts to resolve it.?
Wainwright said that Type 2 cases consider “whatever specific text might exist concerning or pertaining to the case the faculty member brings to us.”
Type 3 cases concern procedural deficiencies in promotion and tenure, Wainwright said. When a faculty member believes a mistake occurred, they may appeal to CAFR. The committee then reviews the written record of the promotion file, along with departmental and university rules, before reaching a decision.
The CAFR’s preventive approach can sometimes become controversial when its structural findings conflict with faculty’s accounts of their experiences.?
“No one at the Chase Center ever once said to me, ‘You’ve got to teach this in a certain way,’” Michael Clune, a Chase Center professor, said.
The disagreement points to a tension in CAFR’s preventive role. The committee may evaluate potential risks before a concrete violation occurs. Wainwright said the report was not intended to document individual experiences but to examine how a department was structured.
“When people have freedom and it erodes, their morale decreases,” Wainwright said. “If we want to arrest the decline in faculty morale–which is very bad for students–then we need to defend academic freedom.”
