Academic Freedom

Academic Freedom

Academic freedom is the belief 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. 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 ND teachers should be careful to avoid controversial matter that is unrelated to the subject. When they speak or write In public, they are free to express their opinions without fear from Institutional censorship or deadlines, but they should show restraint and clearly indicate that they are not speaking for their institution. Citation needed] 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. Academic freedom, the freedom of teachers and students to teach, study, and ruse knowledge and research without unreasonable interference or restriction from law, institutional regulations, or public pressure.

Its basic elements include the freedom of teachers to inquire into any subject that evokes their intellectual concern; to present their findings to their students, colleagues, and others; to publish their data and conclusions without control or censorship; and to teach in the manner they consider professionally appropriate. For students, the basic elements Include the freedom to study subjects that concern them and to form conclusions for themselves and express their opinions.

According to Its proponents, the Justification for academic freedom thus defined lies not in the comfort or convenience of teachers and students but in the benefits to society; I. E. , the long-term interests of a society are best served when the educational process leads to the advancement of knowledge, and knowledge is best advanced when inquiry is free from restraints by the state, by the church or other Institutions, or by special-interest groups. Who are the one make to avail the Academic Freedom?

Rationale Proponents of academic freedom believe the freedom of inquiry by students and casualty 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. The fate of biology In the Soviet union Is also clued[Clayton needed] as a reason why named Troll Lessens rejected Western science?then focused primarily on making advances in theoretical genetics, based on research with the fruit fly (Drosophila melanomas) and proposed a more socially relevant approach to farming that was based on the collectivist principles of dialectical materialism. Lessens called this “Anachronism”, but it is more popularly known today as Likenesses. ) Lesson’s ideas proved appealing to the Soviet leadership, in part because of their value as reprimand, and he was ultimately made director of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences; subsequently, Lessens directed a purge of scientists who professed “harmful ideas,” resulting in the expulsion, imprisonment, or death of hundreds of Soviet scientists.

Lesson’s ideas were then implemented on collectivists farms in the Soviet Union and China. Famines that resulted partly from Lesson’s influence are believed to have killed 30 million people in China alone. FAA (Academics For Academic Freedom) of the United Kingdom[5] is a campaign for lecturers, academic staff and researchers who want to make a public statement in favor of free enquiry and free expression.

Their statement of Academic Freedom has two main principles: 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 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. FAA and those who are part of the campaign believe that it is important for academics to be able to express their pinions – not Just full stop, but 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 should not be protected from radical views. Academic freedom for professors The concept of academic freedom as a right of faculty members is an established part of most legal systems.

Different from the United States, where academic freedom is derived from the guarantee of free speech under the First Amendment, constitutions of other countries (and particularly of civil law Jurisdictions) typically grant a separate right to free learning, teaching, and research. In France A professor at a public French university, or a researcher in a public research laboratory, is 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 his 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 searchers are fully independent and enjoy full freedom of speech in the course of traditions and the dispositions of this code, principles of tolerance and The nomination and promotion of professors is largely done through a process of peer review rather than through normal administrative procedures.

In Germany The German Constitution (Grungiest) 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 nineteenth century, Jurisdiction has understood this right as one to teach Laureateship), study (Leeriness), and conduct research (Fahrenheit deer Waspishness’s) freely, although the last concept has sometimes been taken as a cover term for the first two.

Laureateship 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 Habitation receive the right to teach (venin docent) in a particular academic field, academic freedom is deemed to cover at least the entirety of this field. Leeriness means a student’s right to determine an individual euros of study. Finally, Fahrenheit deer Waspishness’s permits academic self-governance and grants the university control of its internal affairs.

Through the introduction of disciplinary curricula, Leeriness has become a rather empty concept. In the Philippines The 1987 Philippine Constitution states that, “Academic Freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. ” 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 aspect 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.

A closely watched case was the controversial case of University of the Philippines at Dilemma Sociology Professor Sarah Raymond 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 Raymond to the University of the Philippines at Dilemma Chancellor Sergei S. Cacao; and though the case was elevated to University of the Philippines System President Meridian R.

Roman, Roman denied the appeal which was elevated by Professor Raymond to the University’s Board of Regents for decision and the BOOR granted her request for tenure. A major bone of contention among the supporters of Professor Raymond 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 hat may be subject to peer review, for Academic decisions made under the mantle of Academic Freedom.

Section 16 of the 1996 Constitution of South Africa offers specific protection to academic freedom. [9] However there have been a large number of scandals around the restriction of academic freedom at a number of universities with particular concern being expressed at the situation at the University of Zulu-Natal. In the 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 (“AUP”) and the Association of American Colleges (AC) (now the Association of American Colleges and Universities). These principles state that “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject. ” 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. ” The Principles have only the character of private pronouncements, not that of binding law.

The six regional creditors work with American colleges and universities, including private and religious institutions, to implement this standard. Additionally, the AUP, which is not an accrediting body, works with this same institutions. The AUP does not always agree with the regional accrediting bodies on the standards of protection of academic freedom and tenure. The JAPE lists those colleges and universities which it has found to violate these principles. There is some case law in the United States that teachers are limited in their academic freedoms.

Academic freedom for colleges and universities 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. The Supreme Court of the United States said that academic freedom means a university can “determine for itself on academic grounds: who may teach, what may be taught, how it should be taught, and who may be admitted to study. In a 2008 case, a Federal court in Virginia ruled that professors have no academic redeem; all academic freedom resides with the university or college. In that case, Astronaut 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. ” The court relied on mandatory precedent of the U. S. Supreme Court case of Sewage v.

New Hampshire persuasive cases from several circuits of the courts of appeals, including the first, third, and seventh 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. The Astronaut case has gotten significant attention in the academic community as an important precedent.

What are the limitations of Academic Freedom The Limits of Academic Freedom By Gary A. Olson Last summer I wrote a column attempting to clarify the meaning of shared governance (The Chronicle, July 24, 2009). Since then, some readers have requested that I do the same for academic freedom. It’s a particularly timely request, given that the American Association of University Professors recently announced a campaign to enhance academic freedom at public universities. Most of us in academe cherish the protections afforded by academic freedom, but too many are unclear as to its limits.

I have known colleagues who believed that academic freedom allows them to say anything they want, to anyone, in any venue, or to engage in behavior that most observers would assume to be inappropriate in any other workplace. In fact, academic freedom has been claimed as an excuse for the most abusive and uncongenial behavior?shouting at colleagues, publicly berating students or staff members, defaming supervisors or other university administrators, shirking professional duties. One colleague even told me that academic freedom would protect her even if she indulged in slander and character assassination. So long as you believe that what you are saying is the truth,” she said, “then you are fully protected by academic freedom. ” (Needless to say, what a person “believes” is hardly an appropriate defense for violating a law. ) Department heads have told me countless stories of how academic freedom has come the generic excuse for any number of irresponsible acts. One chair described a senior professor who missed a substantial number of her classes. When confronted with evidence of her absenteeism, she told her chair that as an academic she had the freedom to conduct her courses in any way she deemed appropriate. L tried to explain that as an employee she has certain contractual obligations and that academic freedom did not free her from those responsibilities,” the department head explained. “But it took the dean and, finally, the provost to convince her that not only did she have no such freedom but that she would be Jeopardizing her future Another department head said one of her professors managed to avoid teaching his course the entire quarter by assigning a graduate research assistant to “facilitate discussions. The professor never showed up in class after the first day. In effect, the graduate student was forced to teach the course in addition to carrying out her research duties. When undergraduates brought the situation to the department head’s attention, the professor angrily insisted he was protected by academic freedom and threatened to sue if the chair pursued the issue. I know of yet another incident in which a fistfight erupted between two colleagues at a faculty meeting, resulting in bruises and a bloody nose.

Both later contended during a formal hearing that they were “covered” by academic freedom and that the university had no recourse beyond reprimanding them for disrupting an official departmental meeting. The practice of citing academic freedom to condone a limitless range of bad behavior has begun to take on the flavor of that hackneyed student excuse: The dog ate my paper (or, nowadays, My computer crashed). The magical incantation?”lam protected y academic freedom”?is thought to offer instant indemnity.

In reality, academic freedom, like tenure itself, is not a blanket protection. The modern concept of academic freedom has two meanings. First, it refers to the right of an institution to manage its own curriculum and academic affairs without governmental interference. Colleges may determine, for example, what subject matter gets taught and who can teach it; establish their own admission criteria and graduation requirements; and develop their own academic mission and priorities.

That is an important feature of American higher education. It establishes a crucial operation of power that discourages government from dictating that universities adopt particular positions or promote specific causes, and it prevents government from using educational institutions as part of a propaganda apparatus. The second meaning of academic freedom involves the concept that faculty members may engage in research on controversial subjects (and, by extension, discuss those subjects in their classrooms) without fear of reprisal.

This refers specifically to academic subjects and is not a blanket protection for any and all speech in any venue. As the Pap’s well-known statement on academic freedom cautions, referrers “should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. ” The distinction between speech related to one’s discipline, on the one hand, and utterances about extra-disciplinary matters, on the other, is key to understanding academic freedom.

Without the protections afforded by academic freedom, some scholars might fear for their Jobs were they to challenge treasured assumptions in their fields, oppose well-established intellectual traditions, rewrite commonly conduct scientific experiments that run counter to some people’s ethical codes. Academic freedom, then, facilitates scholarship and teaching by eliminating that concern over personal safety. Institutions benefit from the system because their faculty members may go on to produce groundbreaking work that brings greater distinction to the institutions.

But a college or university has no comparable incentive to protect extra-disciplinary speech because such discourse is peripheral to the normal workings of the campus. Because academic freedom is specifically intended to foster the free exchange of ideas within a community of scholars, it does not protect us from other types of utterances and behavior, such as slander or libel, bullying co-workers, lying on a curriculum vitae, or conducting one’s classes in irresponsible ways. The AUP reminds us that as professors we are both private citizens and officers of our institutions.

When speaking as citizens (perhaps at a political rally, say) we should be immune from being disciplined by the institution for our speech, but when speaking in our unique capacity as representatives of the institution?as scholars and teachers in our disciplines?we have an obligation to exercise caution in what we say and how we say it. In the latter role, according to the AUP, our “special position in the community imposes special obligations” because our words are likely to be construed to represent the official position of the institution rather than our own personal views.

Some people confuse the constitutional concept of freedom of speech with the less grandiose notion of academic freedom, but they are two distinct concepts. Academic freedom is limited to the confines of academic discourse while free speech is a broad constitutional right central to our democratic system of government. But even free speech has its limits. The constitutional right of free speech is not meant to protect each and every utterance regardless of context (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when no such danger exists, engaging in “hate speech,” or threatening a police officer).