InsideHigherEd.com writes:

In the last few years, a conservative legal organization [Ed. -- Mark Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation] has filed complaints and extensive information requests to at least 11 colleges and universities with regard to labor centers that conduct research about and offer programs for unions.
…
The [American Association of University Professors'] statement questioned the basis for the Landmark actions and said that the association was trying to undercut the labor centers by waging an ideological attack on them. Further, the statement noted that colleges and universities have a range of offerings for different organizations in society, and that labor unions are far from being the only type of organization to get attention.

“The claims of Landmark in regard to labor education are a fundamental threat to academic freedom, to the autonomy of higher education institutions and professionals in them, and to the responsibilities of each to serve society,” the statement says. “They also run counter to common sense thinking about the role of educators and researchers, and of colleges and universities in society.

“Landmark focuses on labor education without addressing far more common centers and programs that serve private economic concerns and interests. Imagine a higher education institution which could not have a business school or economics department with centers or programs that educate future entrepreneurs or business leaders or provide in-service opportunities to current businesspersons…. Educating potential union leaders is not unlike educating potential CEOs and managers. Both are legitimate academic endeavors.”

Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark, issued his own statement in response.

“We don’t need any talking point lectures from an organization whose members have their snouts deep in the public trough,” Levin said. “We’re not surprised that the American Association of University Professors has taken a stand against the rule of law, transparency and real academic freedom. It’s too much to ask that a partisan special interest group like AAUP would speak out against the proven misconduct brought to light by our complaints.”

Two points:

If you follow the link and read their statement, the AAUP admits at the one university that did not totally stonewall, an internal audit raised serious questions:

It appears that most universities have responded to Landmark’s requests in ways that defended the rights of labor centers. However, at Evergreen, despite the fact that the state auditor gave the college significant flexibility in how to handle the audit request, college administrators went forward with a review — conducted by the college’s internal auditor — that raised questions about the ethics of providing educational services to unions and community groups (for example, of immigrant communities), and of being involved in any work that could be seen as opposing the work of federal agencies (in this case, for example, Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Those questions mirrored charges made by Landmark that “the Center’s focus appears to be increasingly directed toward thwarting federal and state law enforcement efforts to combat illegal immigration in Washington … The use of public funds to undermine federal and local law enforcement in the performance of their duties is not a valid public purpose.”

Citing just one example, on UC Berkeley’s home page you find these reports featured: An, “analysis [of] the “union difference” in family-friendly workplace;” “[The] lessons learned in California to detail how “play-or-pay” requirements on employers could be structured in a national health-care reform plan;” and, “Academics on Employee Free Choice … includ[ing] 13 essays on the Employee Free Choice Act, labor law, and unionization by professors and experts…” It is patently obvious these publicly funded universities are hiding behind the ruse of “academic freedom” to promote their ideology.