Academic freedom

Academic freedom is a moral and legal concept expressing the conviction that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment. While the core of academic freedom covers scholars acting in an academic capacity - as teachers or researchers expressing strictly scholarly viewpoints -, an expansive interpretation extends these occupational safeguards to scholars' speech on matters outside their professional expertise.[1][2] It is a type of freedom of speech.

Academic freedom is a contested issue and, therefore, has limitations in practice. In the United States, for example, according to the widely recognized "1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure" of the American Association of University Professors, teachers should be careful to avoid controversial matters that are unrelated to the subject discussed. When they speak or write in public, they are free to express their opinions without fear from institutional censorship or discipline, but they should show restraint and clearly indicate that they are not speaking for their institution.[3] Academic tenure protects academic freedom by ensuring that teachers can be fired only for causes such as gross professional incompetence or behavior that evokes condemnation from the academic community itself.[4]

Historical background
Michael Polanyi argued that academic freedom was a fundamental necessity for the production of true knowledge.

Although the notion of academic freedom has a long implicit history (Leiden University, founded in 1575, birthplace of the modern concept), the idea was first clearly formulated in response to the encroachments of the totalitarian state on science and academia in general for the furtherance of its own goals. For instance, in the Soviet Union, scientific research was brought under strict political control in the 1930s. A number of research areas were declared "bourgeois pseudoscience" and forbidden, notably genetics[5] (see "Lysenkoism") and sociology.[6] The trend toward subjugating science to the interests of the state also had proponents in the West, including the influential Marxist John Desmond Bernal, who published The Social Function of Science in 1939.

In contrast to this approach, Michael Polanyi argued that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science – that the freedom to pursue science for its own sake is a prerequisite for the production of knowledge through peer review and the scientific method.[7]

In 1936, as a consequence of an invitation to give lectures for the Ministry of Heavy Industry in the USSR, Polanyi met Bukharin, who told him that in socialist societies all scientific research is directed to accord with the needs of the latest five-year plan. Demands in Britain for centrally planned scientific research led Polanyi, together with John Baker, to found the influential Society for Freedom in Science.[8] The society promoted a liberal conception of science as free enquiry against the instrumental view that science should exist primarily to serve the needs of society.[9]

In a series of articles, re-published in The Contempt of Freedom (1940) and The Logic of Liberty (1951), Polanyi claimed that co-operation amongst scientists is analogous to the way in which agents co-ordinate themselves within a free market. Just as consumers in a free market determine the value of products, science is a spontaneous order that arises as a consequence of open debate amongst specialists. Science can therefore only flourish when scientists have the liberty to pursue truth as an end in itself:

[S]cientists, freely making their own choice of problems and pursuing them in the light of their own personal judgment, are in fact co-operating as members of a closely knit organization.

Such self-co-ordination of independent initiatives leads to a joint result which is unpremeditated by any of those who bring it about.

Any attempt to organize the group ... under a single authority would eliminate their independent initiatives, and thus reduce their joint effectiveness to that of the single person directing them from the centre. It would, in effect, paralyse their co-operation.

Rationale

Proponents of academic freedom believe that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy. They argue that academic communities are repeatedly targeted for repression due to their ability to shape and control the flow of information. When scholars attempt to teach or communicate ideas or facts that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities, they may find themselves targeted for public vilification, job loss, imprisonment, or even death. For example, in North Africa, a professor of public health discovered that his country's infant mortality rate was higher than government figures indicated. He lost his job and was imprisoned.[10][11]

The fate of biology in the Soviet Union is also cited as a reason why society has an interest in protecting academic freedom. A Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko rejected Western science – then focused primarily on making advances in theoretical genetics, based on research with the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) – and proposed a more socially relevant approach to farming that was based on the collectivist principles of dialectical materialism. (Lysenko called this "Michurinism", but it is more popularly known today as Lysenkoism.) Lysenko's ideas proved appealing to the Soviet leadership, in part because of their value as propaganda, and he was ultimately made director of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Subsequently, Lysenko directed a purge of scientists who professed "harmful ideas", resulting in the expulsion, imprisonment, or death of hundreds of Soviet scientists. Lysenko's ideas were then implemented on collectivised farms in the Soviet Union and China. Famines that resulted partly from Lysenko's influence are believed to have killed 30 million people in China alone.[12]

AFAF (Academics For Academic Freedom) of the United Kingdom[13] is a campaign for lecturers, academic staff and researchers who want to make a public statement in favour of free enquiry and free expression. Their statement of Academic Freedom has two main principles:

  1. that academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive, and
  2. that academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal.

AFAF and those who agree with its principles believe that it is important for academics to be able not only to express their opinions, but also to put them to scrutiny and to open further debate. They are against the idea of telling the public Platonic "noble lies" and believe that people need not be protected from radical views.

For academic staff

The concept of academic freedom as a right of faculty members is an established part of most legal systems. While in the United States the constitutional protection of academic freedom derives from the guarantee of free speech under the First Amendment, the constitutions of other countries (particularly in civil law systems) typically grant a separate right to free learning, teaching, and research.

Canada

During the interwar years (cir. 1919–1939) Canadian academics were informally expected to be apolitical, lest they bring trouble to their respective universities which, at the time, were very much dependent upon provincial government grants. As well, many Canadian academics of the time considered their position to be remote from the world of politics and felt they had no place getting involved in political issues. However, with the increase of socialist activity in Canada during the Great Depression, due to the rise of social gospel ideology, some left-wing academics began taking active part in contemporary political issues outside the university. Thus, individuals such as Frank H. Underhill at the University of Toronto and other members or affiliates with the League for Social Reconstruction or the socialist movement in Canada who held academic positions, began to find themselves in precarious positions with their university employers. Frank H. Underhill, for example, faced criticism from within and without academia and near expulsion from his university position for his public political comments and his involvement with the League for Social Reconstruction and the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation. According to Michiel Horn this era marked,

... a relaxation of the unwritten controls under which many Canadian professors had previously worked. The nature of the institutions, natural caution and professional pre-occupation had before the Depression inhibited the professoriate. None of these conditions changed quickly, but even at the provincial universities there were brave souls in the 1930s who claimed, with varying success, the right publicly to discuss controversial subjects and express opinions about them.

United Kingdom

The Robbins Report on Higher Education,[14] commissioned by the British government and published in 1963, devoted a full chapter, Chapter XVI, to Academic freedom and its scope. This gives a detailed discussion of the importance attached both to freedom of individual academics and of the institution itself. In a world, both then and now, where illiberal governments are all too ready to attack freedom of expression, the Robbins committee saw the (then) statutory protection given to academic freedom as giving some protection for society as a whole from any temptation to mount such attacks.

When Margaret Thatcher's government sought to remove many of the statutory protections of academic freedom which Robbins had regarded as so important, she was partly frustrated by a hostile amendment to her bill in the House of Lords. This incorporated into what became the 1988 Education Reform Act, the legal right of academics in the UK 'to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have'.[15] These principles of academic freedom are thus articulated in the statutes of most UK universities. Concerns have been raised regarding threats to academic freedom in the UK, including the harassment of feminist academics.[16] In response to such concerns, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued guidance.[17] In 2016 the Warden of Wadham College Oxford, a lawyer previously Director of Public Prosecutions, pointed out that the Conservative government's anti-terrorism "Prevent" strategy legislation has placed on universities 'a specific enforceable duty ... to prevent the expression of views that are otherwise entirely compatible with the criminal law'.[18]

France

Professors at public French universities and researchers in public research laboratories are expected, as are all civil servants, to behave in a neutral manner and to not favor any particular political or religious point of view during the course of their duties. However, the academic freedom of university professors is a fundamental principle recognized by the laws of the Republic, as defined by the Constitutional Council; furthermore, statute law declares about higher education that "teachers-researchers (university professors and assistant professors), researchers and teachers are fully independent and enjoy full freedom of speech in the course of their research and teaching activities, provided they respect, following university traditions and the dispositions of this code, principles of tolerance and objectivity".[19] The nomination and promotion of professors is largely done through a process of peer review rather than through normal administrative procedures.

Germany

The German Constitution (German: Grundgesetz) specifically grants academic freedom: "Art and science, research and teaching are free. Freedom of teaching does not absolve from loyalty to the constitution" (Art. 5, para. 3). In a tradition reaching back to the 19th century, jurisdiction has understood this right as one to teach (Lehrfreiheit), study (Lernfreiheit), and conduct research (Freiheit der Wissenschaft) freely, although the last concept has sometimes been taken as a cover term for the first two. Lehrfreiheit embraces the right of professors to determine the content of their lectures and to publish the results of their research without prior approval.

Since professors through their Habilitation receive the right to teach (Latin: venia docendi) in a particular academic field, academic freedom is deemed to cover at least the entirety of this field. Lernfreiheit means a student's right to determine an individual course of study. Finally, Freiheit der Wissenschaft permits academic self-governance and grants the university control of its internal affairs.

Mauritius

In Mauritius the academic staff have the following rights, which are stated in the Chapter II Constitution of Mauritius: the protection of Freedom of Conscience, Protection of Freedom of Expression, Protection of Freedom of Assembly and Association, Protection of Freedom to Establish schools and the Protection from Discrimination.[20] In a 2012 paper on the University of Mauritius the author states that although there are no records of abuse of human rights or freedom of the state "subtle threats to freedom of expression do exist, especially with regard to criticisms of ruling political parties and their leaders as well as religious groups."[21] The government of Mauritius endorses the practice of academic freedom in the tertiary institutions of the country.[21] Academic freedom became a public issue in May 2009 when the University of Mauritius spoke out against the previous vice chancellor Professor I. Fagoonee, who had forwarded a circular sent by the Ministry of Education to academics.[21] This circular targeted public officers and required them to consult their superiors before speaking to the press. According to the paper, academics were annoyed by the fact that the vice chancellor had endorsed the circular by sending it to them when it was addressed to public officers.[21] In an interview the vice- chancellor stated that while academics were free to speak to the press they should not compromise university policy or government policy.[21] An academic spoke to the prime minister and the issue was eventually taken up to parliament.[21] The vice chancellor was then required to step down.[21] In return the government publicly endorsed the practice of academic freedom.[21]

The institutional bureaucracy and the dependence on the state for funds has restricted the freedom of academics to criticize government policy.[21] An interview with Dr. Kasenally an educator at the University of Mauritius expresses her views on academic freedom in the university.[21] The professor states that in 1970s to 1980s the university was at the forefront of debates.[21] But in the 1990s the university stepped away from controversial debates.[21] In 1986, the rights of academics to engage in politics was removed to curtail academic freedom.[21] Academics at the University of Mauritius have thus been encouraged to not express their views or ideas especially if the views oppose those of the management or government.[21] While there have been no cases of arrests or extreme detention of academics, there is a fear that it would hinder their career progress especially at the level of a promotion thus, the academics try to avoid participating in controversial debates.[21]

Netherlands

In the Netherlands the academic freedom is limited. In November 1985 the Dutch Ministry of Education published a policy paper titled Higher Education: Autonomy and Quality.[22] This paper had a proposal that steered away from traditional education and informed that the future of higher education sector should not be regulated by the central government.[22] In 1992 the Law of Higher Education and Research (Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek, article 1.6) was published and became effective in 1993.[22] However, this law governs only certain institutions.[22] Furthermore, the above provision is part of an ordinary statute and lacks constitutional status, so it can be changed anytime by a simple majority in Parliament.

Philippines

The 1987 Philippine Constitution states that, "Academic Freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning."[23] Philippine jurisprudence and courts of law, including the Philippine Supreme Court tend to reflexively defer to the institutional autonomy of higher institutions of learning in determining academic decisions with respect to the outcomes of individual cases filed in the courts regarding the abuse of Academic Freedom by professors, despite the individual merits or demerits of any cases.[24] A closely watched case was the controversial case of University of the Philippines at Diliman Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo who was not granted tenure due to an appeal by the minority dissenting vote within the faculty of the Sociology Department. This decision was sustained upon appeal by the dissenting faculty and Professor Raymundo to the University of the Philippines at Diliman Chancellor Sergio S. Cao; and though the case was elevated to University of the Philippines System President Emerlinda R. Roman, Roman denied the appeal which was elevated by Professor Raymundo to the university's board of regents for decision and the BOR granted her request for tenure. A major bone of contention among the supporters of Professor Raymundo was not to question the institutional Academic Freedom of the department in not granting her tenure, but in asking for transparency in how the Academic Freedom of the department was exercised, in keeping with traditions within the University of the Philippines in providing a basis that may be subject to peer review, for Academic decisions made under the mantle of Academic Freedom.

South Africa

The South African Constitution of 1996 offers protection of academic freedom and the freedom of scholarly research.[25] Academic freedom became a main principle for higher education by 1997.[25] Three main threats are believed to jeopardize academic freedom: government regulations, excessive influence of private sector sponsor on a university, and limitations of freedom of speech in universities.[25]

There have been an abundance of scandals over the restricted academic freedom at a number of universities in South Africa.[26] The University of KwaZulu-Natal received fame over its restricted academic freedom and the scandal that occurred in 2007.[26] In this scandal a sociology lecturer, Fazel Khan was fired in April 2007 for "bringing the university into disrepute" after he released information to the news media.[26] According to Khan he had been airbrushed from a photograph in a campus publication because of his participation in a staff strike last February.[26] In light of this scandal the South African Council on Higher Education released a report stating that the state is influencing academic freedom.[26] In particular, public universities are more susceptible to political pressure because they receive funds from the public.[26]

New Zealand

Academic freedom pertains to forms of expression by academic staff engaged in scholarship and is defined by the Education Act 1989 (s161(2)) as: a) The freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions; b) The freedom of academic staff and students to engage in research; c) The freedom of the university and its staff to regulate the subject matter of courses taught at the university; d) The freedom of the university and its staff to teach and assess students in the manner they consider best promotes learning; and e) The freedom of the university through its council and vice-chancellor to appoint its own staff. [27]

United States

In the United States, academic freedom is generally taken as the notion of academic freedom defined by the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure", jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges (AAC, now the Association of American Colleges and Universities).[28] These principles state that "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject."[28] The statement also permits institutions to impose "limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims", so long as they are "clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment".[28] The Principles have only the character of private pronouncements, not that of binding law.

Seven regional accreditors work with American colleges and universities, including private and religious institutions, to implement this standard. Additionally, the AAUP, which is not an accrediting body, works with these same institutions. The AAUP does not always agree with the regional accrediting bodies on the standards of protection of academic freedom and tenure.[29] The AAUP lists (censures) those colleges and universities which it has found, after its own investigations, to violate these principles.[30] There is some case law in the United States that holds that teachers are limited in their academic freedom.

Academic freedom for colleges and universities (institutional autonomy)

A prominent feature of the English university concept is the freedom to appoint faculty, set standards and admit students. This ideal may be better described as institutional autonomy and is distinct from whatever freedom is granted to students and faculty by the institution.[31]

The Supreme Court of the United States said that academic freedom means a university can "determine for itself on academic grounds:

  1. who may teach,
  2. what may be taught,
  3. how it should be taught, and
  4. who may be admitted to study."[32][33][34]

In a 2008 case, a federal court in Virginia ruled that professors have no academic freedom; all academic freedom resides with the university or college.[34] In that case, Stronach v. Virginia State University, a district court judge held "that no constitutional right to academic freedom exists that would prohibit senior (university) officials from changing a grade given by (a professor) to one of his students."[34] The court relied on mandatory precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire[33] and a case from the fourth circuit court of appeals.[34][35] The Stronach court also relied on persuasive cases from several circuits of the courts of appeals, including the first,[36] third,[37][38] and seventh[39] circuits. That court distinguished the situation when a university attempts to coerce a professor into changing a grade, which is clearly in violation of the First Amendment, from when university officials may, in their discretionary authority, change the grade upon appeal by a student.[34][40] The Stronach case has gotten significant attention in the academic community as an important precedent.[41]

Relationship to freedom of speech

Academic freedom and free speech rights are not coextensive, although this widely accepted view has been recently challenged by an "institutionalist" perspective on the First Amendment.[42] Academic freedom involves more than speech rights; for example, it includes the right to determine what is taught in the classroom.[43] The AAUP gives teachers a set of guidelines to follow when their ideas are considered threatening to religious, political, or social agendas. When teachers speak or write in public, whether via social media or in academic journals, they are able to articulate their own opinions without the fear from institutional restriction or punishment, but they are encouraged to show restraint and clearly specify that they are not speaking for their institution.[44] In practice, academic freedom is protected by institutional rules and regulations, letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, collective bargaining agreements, and academic custom.[45]

In the U.S., the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." By extension, the First Amendment applies to all governmental institutions, including public universities. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that academic freedom is a First Amendment right at public institutions.[46] However, The United States' First Amendment has generally been held to not apply to private institutions, including religious institutions. These private institutions may honor freedom of speech and academic freedom at their discretion.

Controversies
Evolution debate

Academic freedom is also associated with a movement to introduce intelligent design as an alternative explanation to evolution in US public schools. Supporters claim that academic institutions need to fairly represent all possible explanations for the observed biodiversity on Earth, rather than implying no alternatives to evolutionary theory exist.

Critics of the movement claim intelligent design is religiously motivated pseudoscience and cannot be allowed into the curriculum of US public schools due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, often citing Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District as legal precedent.[47][48] They also reject the allegations of discrimination against proponents of intelligent design, of which investigation showed no evidence.[49]

A number of "academic freedom bills" have been introduced in state legislatures in the United States between 2004 and 2008. The bills were based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute,[50] the hub of the Intelligent Design movement, and derive from language originally drafted for the Santorum Amendment in the United States Senate. According to The Wall Street Journal, the common goal of these bills is to expose more students to articles and videos that undercut evolution, most of which are produced by advocates of intelligent design or biblical creationism.[51] The American Association of University Professors has reaffirmed its opposition to these bills, including any portrayal of creationism as a scientifically credible alternative and any misrepresentation of evolution as scientifically controversial.[52][53] As of June 2008, only the Louisiana bill has been successfully passed into law.

Communism

In the 20th century and particularly the 1950s during McCarthyism, there was much public date in print on Communism's role in academic freedom, e.g., Sidney Hook's Heresy, Yes–Conspiracy, No[54] and Whittaker Chambers' "Is Academic Freedom in Danger?"[55] among many other books and articles.

"Academic bill of rights"

Students for Academic Freedom (SAF)[56] was founded and is sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center to advocate against a perceived liberal bias in U.S. colleges and universities. The organization collected many statements from college students complaining that some of their professors were disregarding their responsibility to keep unrelated controversial material out of their classes and were instead teaching their subjects from an ideological point of view. SAF drafted model legislation, called the Academic Bill of Rights, which has been introduced in several state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives. The Academic Bill of Rights is based on the Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure as published by the American Association of University Professors in 1915, and modified in 1940 and 1970.

According to Students for Academic Freedom, academic freedom is "the freedom to teach and to learn." They contend that academic freedom promotes "intellectual diversity" and helps achieve a university's primary goals, i.e., "the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large." They feel that, in the past forty years, the principles as defined in the AAUP Declaration have become something of a dead letter, and that an entrenched class of tenured radical leftists is blocking all efforts to restore those principles.[57] In an attempt to override such opposition, the Academic Bill of Rights calls for state and judicial regulation of colleges. Such regulation would ensure that:

  • students and faculty will not be favored or disfavored because of their political views or religious beliefs;
  • the humanities and social sciences, in particular, will expose their students to a variety of sources and viewpoints, and not present one viewpoint as certain and settled truth;[58]
  • campus publications and invited speakers will not be harassed, abused, or otherwise obstructed;
  • academic institutions and professional societies will adopt a neutral attitude in matters of politics, ideology or religion.

Opponents argue that such a bill would actually restrict academic freedom, by granting politically motivated legislators and judges the right to shape the nature and focus of scholarly concerns. According to the American Association of University Professors, the Academic Bill of Rights is, despite its title, an attack on the very concept of academic freedom itself: "A fundamental premise of academic freedom is that decisions concerning the quality of scholarship and teaching are to be made by reference to the standards of the academic profession, as interpreted and applied by the community of scholars who are qualified by expertise and training to establish such standards." The Academic Bill of Rights directs universities to implement the principle of neutrality by requiring the appointment of faculty "with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives," an approach they argue is problematic because "It invites diversity to be measured by political standards that diverge from the academic criteria of the scholarly profession." For example,"no department of political theory ought to be obligated to establish 'a plurality of methodologies and perspectives' by appointing a professor of Nazi political philosophy."[59] Concurring, the president of Appalachian Bible College in West Virginia fears that the Academic Bill of Rights "would inhibit his college's efforts to provide a faith-based education and would put pressure on the college to hire professors... who espouse views contrary to those of the institution."[60]

Pontifical universities

Pontifical universities around the world such as The Catholic University of America, the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum in Rome, the Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium, and the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru depend for their status as pontifical universities and for the terms of academic freedom on the Pope through the Congregation for Catholic Education. The terms of academic freedom at ecclesiastical institutions of education are outlined in the apostolic constitution Sapientia Christiana.[61]

Specific cases

While some controversies of academic freedom are reflected in proposed laws that would affect large numbers of students through entire regions, many cases involve individual academics that express unpopular opinions or share politically unfavorable information. These individual cases may receive widespread attention and periodically test the limits of, and support for, academic freedom. Several of these specific cases are also the foundations for later legislation.

The Lane Rebels

In the early 1830s, students at the Lane Theological Seminary, in Cincinnati, sponsored a series of debates lasting 18 days. The topic was the American Colonization Society's project of sending free blacks to (not "back to") Africa, specifically Liberia, and opposing freeing slaves unless they agreed to leave the United States immediately. The Society, whose founders and officers were Southern slaveowners, provided funding for existing free blacks to relocate to Liberia, believing that free blacks caused unrest among the slaves, and that the United States was and should remain a white country. (Blacks were not citizens until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.) The winner of the debate was the rejection of the Society's plan, which at best only helped a few thousand, in favor of abolitionusm: the immediate, complete, and uncompensated freeing of all slaves.

The trustees of the Seminary, fearing a repeat of the anti-abolitionist Cincinnati riots of 1829, prohibited any further "off-topic" discussiions", overruling the faculty in the process. As a result, the vast majority of the student body left Lane (the "Lane Rebels") to become the initial class of the new Oberlin Collegiate Institute. They first obtained a written guarantee from the Oberlin trustees that there would be no limits on discourse, and that the faculty, not the trustees, would control the internal affairs of the school.[62]

The Bassett Affair at Duke University

The Bassett Affair at Duke University in North Carolina in the early 20th century was an important event in the history of academic freedom.[63] In October 1903, Professor John Spencer Bassett publicly praised Booker T. Washington and drew attention to the racism and white supremacist behavior of the Democratic party. Many media reports castigated Bassett, and several major newspapers published opinion pieces attacking him and demanding his termination. On December 1, 1903, the entire faculty of the college threatened to resign en masse if the board gave in to political pressures and asked Bassett to resign.[64] He resigned after "parents were urged to withdraw their children from the college and churchmen were encouraged not to recommend the college to perspective students."[64] President Teddy Roosevelt later praised Bassett for his willingness to express the truth as he saw it.

Professor Mayer and DeGraff of The University of Missouri

In 1929, Experimental Psychology Professor Max Friedrich Meyer and Sociology Assistant Professor Harmon O. DeGraff were dismissed from their positions at the University of Missouri for advising student Orval Hobart Mowrer regarding distribution of a questionnaire which inquired about attitudes towards partners' sexual tendencies, modern views of marriage, divorce, extramarital sexual relations, and cohabitation.[65][66] The university was subsequently censured by the American Association of University Professors in an early case regarding academic freedom due a tenured professor.[67]

Professor Rice of Rollins College

In a famous case investigated by the American Association of University Professors, President Hamilton Holt of Rollins College in March 1933 fired John Andrew Rice, an atheist scholar and unorthodox teacher, whom Holt had hired, along with three other "golden personalities", in his push to put Rollins on the cutting edge of innovative education. Holt then required all professors to make a "loyalty pledge" to keep their jobs. The American Association of University Professors censured Rollins. Rice and the three other "golden personalities", who were all dismissed for refusing to make the loyalty pledge, founded Black Mountain College.[68]

William Shockley

In 1978, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, electronics inventor, and electrical engineering professor, William Shockley, was concerned about relatively high reproductive rates among people of African descent, because he believed that genetics doomed black people to be intellectually inferior to white people. He stated that he believed his work on race to be more important than his work leading to the Nobel prize.[69] He was strongly criticized for this stance, which raised some concerns about whether criticism of unpopular views of racial differences suppressed academic freedom.[70]

President Summers of Harvard

In 2006, Lawrence Summers, while president of Harvard University, led a discussion that was intended to identify the reasons why fewer women chose to study science and mathematics at advanced levels. He suggested that the possibility of intrinsic gender differences in terms of talent for science and mathematics should be explored. He became the target of considerable public backlash.[71] His critics were, in turn, accused of attempting to suppress academic freedom.[72] Due to the adverse reception to his comments, he resigned after a five-year tenure. Another significant factor of his resignation was several votes of no-confidence placed by the deans of schools, notably multiple professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.[73]

Duke Lacrosse Scandal

The 2006 scandal in which several members of the Duke Lacrosse team were falsely accused of rape raised serious criticisms against exploitation of academic freedom by the university and its faculty to press judgement and deny due process to the three players accused.[74] This case was very controversial due to the rape culture it pertains to.

Professor Khan of the University of KwaZulu-Natal

In 2006 trade union leader and sociologist Fazel Khan was fired from the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa after taking a leadership role in a strike.[75] In 2008 international concern was also expressed at attempts to discipline two other academics at the same university – Nithiya Chetty and John van der Berg – for expressing concern about academic freedom at the university.[76]

Author J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University

J. Michael Bailey wrote a popular science-style book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, which promotes Ray Blanchard's theory that trans women are motivated by sexuality, and dismisses the "woman trapped in a man's body" concept of transsexuality. In 2007 in an effort to discredit his book, some activists filed formal complaints with Northwestern University accusing Bailey of conducting regulated human research. They also filed a complaint with Illinois state regulators, requesting that they investigate Bailey for practicing psychology without a license. Regulators dismissed the complaint.[77][78] Other academics have also accused him of sexual misconduct.[77]

Professor Li-Ann of New York University School of Law

In 2009 Thio Li-ann withdrew from an appointment at New York University School of Law after controversy erupted about some anti-gay remarks she had made, prompting a discussion of academic freedom within the law school.[79][80] Subsequently, Li-ann was asked to step down from her position in the NYU Law School.[81]

Professor Robinson of the University of California at Santa Barbara

In 2009 the University of California at Santa Barbara charged William I. Robinson with antisemitism after he circulated an email to his class containing photographs and paragraphs of the Holocaust juxtaposed to those of the Gaza Strip.[82][83] Robinson was fired from the university, but after charges were dropped after a worldwide campaign against the management of the university.[84]

The Diliman Affair of the University of the Philippines

The University of the Philippines at Diliman affair where controversy erupted after Professor Gerardo A. Agulto of the College of Business Administration was sued by MBA graduate student Chanda R. Shahani for a nominal amount in damages for failing him several times in the Strategic Management portion of the Comprehensive Examination. Agulto refused to give a detailed basis for his grades and instead invoked Academic Freedom while Shahani argued in court that Academic Freedom could not be invoked without a rational basis in grading a student.[85]

Professor Salaita of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In 2013 the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign offered Steven Salaita a faculty position in American Indian studies but then withdrew the offer in 2014, after reviewing some of his comments on Twitter about Israel.[86]

Professor Guth of Kansas University

Professor David Guth of Kansas University was persecuted by the Kansas Board of Regents due to his tweet, from a personal account linked to the university, regarding the shootings which stated, "#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you."[87] Following the controversial comments, Kansas University suspended, but ultimately allowed him to come back. Because of this incident and the moral qualms it raised, the Kansas Board of Regents passed a new policy regarding social media. This new legislature allowed universities to discipline or terminate employees who used social media in ways "contrary to the best interests of the university."[87]

gollark: Just in general. I don't think ubq has shifted things much.
gollark: It is entirely possible that I *may* become ¬staff relatively soon. Fun!
gollark: Heavserver has excellent moderator-only channels.
gollark: Looks like palaiologos is capable of inference. HOW SURPRISING.
gollark: Unfortunately, this might be one of the temporary universes created while we converge on an optimum one.

See also

References
  1. Andreescu, Liviu (2009). "Individual academic freedom and aprofessional acts". Educational Theory. 59 (5): 559–578. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2009.00338.x.
  2. Van Alstyne, William (1975). ‘‘The Specific Theory of Academic Freedom and the General Issue of Civil Liberty’’. In The Concept of Academic Freedom, ed. Edmund Pincoffs. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1975.
  3. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges, p. 3.
  4. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges, p. 4.
  5. Glass, Bentley (May 1962). "Scientists in Politics". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 18 (5): 3. Bibcode:1962BuAtS..18e...2G. doi:10.1080/00963402.1962.11454353.
  6. Greenfeld, Liah (1988-01-01). "Soviet Sociology and Sociology in the Soviet Union". Annual Review of Sociology. 14: 99–123. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.14.1.99. JSTOR 2083312.
  7. Michael Polanyi (1958). Personal Knowledge. ISBN 0-7734-9150-3.
  8. William McGucken (1978). "On Freedom and Planning in Science: The Society for Freedom in Science 1940–1946". Minerva. 16 (1): 42–72. doi:10.1007/BF01102181.
  9. McGucken, William (1978). "On Freedom and Planning in Science: The Society for Freedom in Science 1940–1946". Minerva. 16: 42–72. doi:10.1007/bf01102181.
  10. Robert Quinn (2004). "Defending 'Dangerous Minds Archived 2010-06-26 at the Wayback Machine.'"
  11. Ralph E. Fuchs (1969). "Academic Freedom—Its Basic Philosophy, Function and History," in Louis Joughin (ed)., Academic Freedom and Tenure: A Handbook of the American Association of University Professors.
  12. Jasper Becker (1996). Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine. New York: Free Press.
  13. "Academics for Academic Freedom". UK. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
  14. "Robbins Report on Higher Education". October 1963. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
  15. "1988 Education Reform Act". The National Archives.
  16. Sullivan, A.; Suissa, J. (2019). "The Gender Wars, Academic Freedom and Education". British Educational Research Association.
  17. "Freedom of expression: a guide for higher education providers and students' unions in England and Wales". Equality and Human Rights Commission. 2019.
  18. Macdonald, Ken (February 2016). "PREVENT: Counter-Terrorism and Freedom". Wadham College, University of Oxford. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
  19. French Education Code, L952-2, French Government.
  20. Russo, Charles J. (2013). Handbook of Comparative Higher Education Law. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc. pp. 191–207. ISBN 978-1-4758-0405-8.
  21. Ramtohul, Ramola (2012). "Academic Freedom in a State-Sponsored African University: The Case of the University of Mauritius". AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom. 3: 1–17 – via American Association of University Professors.
  22. Russo, Charles J. (2013). Handbook of Comparative Higher Education Law. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pp. 207–229. ISBN 978-1-4758-0405-8.
  23. "1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES – CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  24. "Notice of Full Disclosure". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  25. "Academic Freedom statement from the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf)". South African Journal of Science. 106 (3/4). 16 April 2010.
  26. Lindow, Megan (25 May 2007). "Academic Freedom Is Eroding in South Africa, Critics Say". Chronicle of Higher Education. 53 (38): A50.
  27. "Education Act 1989 No 80 (as at 28 September 2017), Public Act 161 Academic freedom –". New Zealand Legislation. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
  28. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, AAUP "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2007-02-08. Retrieved 2006-10-13.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link), accessed March 23, 2007
  29. For example, the Northwest Association of Schools and of Colleges and Universities reviewed Brigham Young University's academic freedom statement and found it in compliance with the 1940 statement, while AAUP has found Brigham Young University to be in violation
  30. "Censure List". AAUP. Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  31. (Kemp, p. 7)
  32. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 312 (1978).
  33. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 262–263 (1957) (Felix Frankfurter, Justice).
  34. Stronach v. Virginia State University, civil action 3:07-CV-646-HEH (E. D. Va. Jan. 15, 2008).
  35. See Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401, 414, 415 (4th Cir. 2000). (Noting that "cases that have referred to a First Amendment right of academic freedom have done so generally in terms of the institution, not the individual ...." and "Significantly, the court has never recognized that professors possess a First Amendment right of academic freedom to determine for themselves the content of their courses and scholarship, despite opportunities to do so".
  36. Lovelace v. S.E. Mass. University, 793 F.2d 419, 425 (1st Cir. 1986) ("To accept plaintiff's contention that an untenured teacher's grading policy is constitutionally protected ... would be to constrict the university in defining and performing its educational mission".)
  37. Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania, 156 F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 1998) ("In Edwards v. Cal. Univ. of Pa., The court held that the First Amendment does not allow a university professor to decide what is taught in the classroom but rather protects the university's right to select the curriculum," as cited in Stronach.)
  38. Brown v. Amenti, 247 F.3d 69, 75 (3d Cir. 2001). (Holding "a public university professor does not have a First Amendment right to expression via the school's grade assignment procedures".)
  39. Wozniak v. Conry, 236 F.3d 888, 891 (7th Cir. 2001). (Holding that "No person has a fundamental right to teach undergraduate engineering classes without following the university's grading rules ...." and that "it is the [u]niversity's name, not [the professor]'s, that appears on the diploma; the [u]niversity, not [the professor], certifies to employers and graduate schools a student's successful completion of a course of study. Universities are entitled to assure themselves that their evaluation systems have been followed; otherwise their credentials are meaningless".)
  40. See Parate v. Isibor, 868 F.2d 821, 827–28 (6th Cir. 1989). (Holding that "a university professor may claim that his assignment of an examination grade or a final grade is communication protected by the First Amendment ... [t]hus, the individual professor may not be compelled, by university officials, to change a grade that the professor previously assigned to her student".
  41. White, Lawrence, "CASE IN POINT: STRONACH V. VIRGINIA STATE U. (2008): Does Academic Freedom Give a Professor the Final Say on Grades?", Chronicle of Higher Education, found at Chronicle web site and Chronicle Review commentary and blog. Accessed May 20, 2008.
  42. See, for instance, Paul Horwitz, "Universities as First Amendment Institutions: Some Easy Answers and Hard Questions, 54 UCLA Law Review 1497 (2007)
  43. Litt, Andrew. "At UCLA, free speech is suppressed and double standards reign". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2017-09-26.
  44. "AAUP. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure" (PDF). AAUP.
  45. Donna Euben, Political And Religious Belief Discrimination On Campus: Faculty and Student Academic Freedom and The First Amendment. Archived 2005-12-20 at the Wayback Machine
  46. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985).
  47. Lynn, Leon (Winter 1997–1998). "Creationists Push Pseudo-Science Text". Rethinking Schools Online.
  48. Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover. National Center for Science Education. October 17th, 2008
  49. Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement Archived 2008-09-10 at the Wayback Machine, The Professional Staff of the Education Pre-K-12 Committee, Florida Senate, March 26, 2008
  50. "Academic Freedom" Bill in South Carolina Now Archived 2008-05-20 at the Wayback Machine Ed Brayton, Dispatches From the Culture Wars, May 18, 2008.
  51. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools, Stephanie Simon, The Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2008
  52. Academic Freedom and Teaching Evolution Archived 2009-12-05 at Archive.today Resolutions of the 94th Annual Meeting, American Association of University Professors. 2008
  53. The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott. Scientific American, December 2008.
  54. Hook, Sidney (1953). Heresy, Yes–Conspiracy, No. John Day Company. pp. 9–13 (two groups), 13 (publications), 278 (conclusion). LCCN 63006587.
  55. Chambers, Whittaker (22 June 1953). "Is Academic Freedom in Danger?". Life. Time, Inc.: 91. Retrieved 2 February 2018.
  56. Students for Academic Freedom. "Students For Academic Freedom". Archived from the original on 8 August 2003. Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  57. David Horowitz (2007). Indoctrination U: the Left's war against academic freedom ISBN 1-59403-190-8
  58. Brown, Sarah (2017-07-01). "Why Did a UCLA Instructor With a Popular Free-Speech Course Lose His Job?". The Chronicle of Higher Education. ISSN 0009-5982. Retrieved 2017-09-26.
  59. "Academic Bill of Rights". American Association of University Professors. 2003.
  60. Alyson Klein (2004). "Worried on the Left and Right." Chronicle of Higher Education (July 9, 2004).
  61. https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15041979_sapientia-christiana_en.html Accessed June 24, 2011
  62. Lesick, Lawrence Thomas (1980). The Lane rebels : evangelicalism and antislavery in antebellum America. Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810813726.
  63. "John Spencer Bassett and the Bassett Affair". Duke University Libraries. Archived from the original on 19 March 2008.
  64. King, William E. "The Bassett Affair of 1903". Retrieved 11 July 2016.
  65. Nelson, Lawrence J. (2003). Rumors of Indiscretion: The University of Missouri "Sex Questionnaire" Scandal in the Jazz Age. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. ISBN 0-8262-1449-5.
  66. Broadwell, Percy (February 2, 1930). "Academic Freedom at the University of Missouri: Report on the Dismissal of Professor DeGraff and the Suspension of Professor Meyer" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on March 20, 2015.
  67. A.J. Carlson (February 1930). "Report on the Dismissal of Professor DeGraff and the Suspension of Professor Meyer". Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. XVI (2): 2–35. doi:10.2307/40218216. JSTOR 40218216.
  68. Seymour, Mary (Fall 2011). "The Ghosts of Rollins (and Other Skeletons in the Closet)". Rollins Magazine.
  69. "William B. Shockley, 79, Creator of Transistor and Theory on Race". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
  70. Kilgore, William J.; Sullivan, Barbara (1975). "Academic Values and the Jensen-Shockley Controversy". Journal of General Education.
  71. Bombardieri, Marcella (17 January 2005). "Summers' remarks on women draw fire". Boston.com. Archived from the original on 19 January 2005.
  72. Stephan Thernstrom. "In Defense of Academic Freedom at Harvard". History News Network, George Mason University.
  73. Finder, Alan (February 22, 2006). "President of Harvard Resigns, Ending Stormy 5-Year Tenure". The New York Times.
  74. James E. Coleman Jr.; Angela Davis; et al. (2009). "The Phases and Faces of the Duke Lacrosse Controversy: A Conversation". Seton Hall Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law. Duke University School of Law. 19: 181–220. Retrieved January 11, 2018.
  75. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-02-13. Retrieved 2016-02-09.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Fight for Fazel Khan – An archive of documents on the dismissal of Fazel Khan]
  76. Letter from foreign academics to Mac Mia, Chair of Council, and Malegapuru Makgoba, Vice Chancellor Letter from David William Cohen and 35 others
  77. Carey, Benedict. (21 August 2007) "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege." The New York Times.
  78. Dreger AD (June 2008). "The controversy surrounding "The man who would be queen": a case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the Internet age" (PDF). Arch Sex Behav. 37 (3): 366–421. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1. PMC 3170124. PMID 18431641.
  79. "Rights for some people". Inside Higher Ed. 8 June 2009. Retrieved 11 June 2009.
  80. Tay Shi'an (22 July 2009). "She's not against gay people, just against gay agenda". The New Paper. Retrieved 24 July 2009.
  81. Hu, winnie (July 22, 2009). "Citing Opposition, Professor Calls off NYU Appointment". The New York Times.
  82. Helfand, Duke (30 April 2009). "Professor's comparison of Israelis to Nazis stirs furor". Los Angeles Times.
  83. Dana L. Cloud (April 30, 2009). "The McCarthyism That Horowitz Built: The Cases of Margo Ramlal Nankoe, William Robinson, Nagesh Rao and Loretta Capeheart". CounterPunch. Archived from the original on May 29, 2010.
  84. SPME Statement on the Disposition of the Case of William Robinson at UCSB, SPME Board of Directors, June 29, 2009
  85. "DILIMAN DIARY". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  86. "U. of Illinois Board's Denial of Job to Salaita Is Unlikely to Quell Controversy". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2016-02-01.
  87. Murphy, Helen (December 2014). "The Views Expressed Represent Mine Alone: Academic Freedom and Social Media". Scripted.

Further reading
Archives
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.