November 12, 2021

BY EMAIL

Dr. W. Kent Fuchs

President, University of Florida
226 Tigert Hall
Gainsville, FL 32611
president@ufl.edu

RE: President’s Task Force on Outside Activities

President Fuchs:
We write to express our grave concern about the formation, composition, and scope of the
purported “task force” that you appointed in an attempt to respond to the threat to the
University’s accreditation caused by the administration’s recent intrusions into academic
freedom.
We had hoped such a task force would be convened in good faith and perhaps we would be able
to find a way to reach an amicable resolution without going to court, but what we have seen and
heard from the University underscores the importance of the lawsuit we filed.

First, assigning this issue to a “task force” of your choosing appears simply to be a cynical tactic
to defuse press attention and stem the reputational damage that resulted when the University
imposed a prior restraint on, and sought to discriminate based on viewpoint among, the speech of
its faculty members. The “task force” concept appears to have originated not with the faculty
itself, but with the administration’s government relations and public relations team.

Second, the composition of the “task force” highlights its illegitimacy and inadequacy. The
group excludes any representation from the Faculty of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
And it includes at least two members who have disqualified themselves because of their own
problematic actions on this very issue.
Since early 2020, “task force” members Laura Rosenbury, College of Law Dean, and Terra
DuBois, Chief Compliance, Ethics, & Privacy Officer, have both been engaged in the
development and unconstitutional execution of the existing conflict of interest policies. Neither
can fairly or objectively judge the permissibility or constitutionality of their own actions.
You are also conflicted. On September 23, 2021, in an address to the University’s Faculty
Senate, you explained that challenging the state government’s “final decision” on a policy—and
doing something publicly that draws national attention such as a vote of no confidence—would
have no positive impact on the University’s ability to influence the policy, but rather it would
fracture the relationship between the University and state government.
It is both ironic and telling that a “task force” purportedly formed to address the issue of conflicts
of interest is itself rife with them.
Third, the scope of the “task force” demonstrates that it is not a serious effort to grapple with the
threats to academic freedom that the University’s actions represent. In fact, Dean Laura
Rosenbury, while inviting her colleagues’ input into UF’s policies and procedures asked only for
advice about the policies and procedures “as they relate to the issue of serving as an expert
witness.” Provost Glover is similarly under the impression that the “task force” was put in place
solely to address the issue of professors serving as expert witnesses, stating during the first
meeting that the “task force” was focusing solely on the issue of expert witness testimonies
because “[President Fuchs] feels that this is one of the issues that is most pressing[.]” At best,
the “task force” members appear to be unclear and confused about what precisely they are being
asked to resolve in the three short weeks that the group exists.
The present moment provides the University with an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment
to academic freedom. This is a crisis of academic sovereignty. We respectfully submit that the
best qualified experts to fix this problem are those who had no hand in its development,
implementation, or administration.
It is unfortunate that this matter will have to be adjudicated in a court of law and not between
peers.
Sincerely,

Sharon Austin

Michael McDonald

Daniel A. Smith