Home  ›  what is academic freedom and why is it important to teachers

what is academic freedom and why is it important to teachers

Written By Friday, 8 April 2022 Add Comment Edit

Moral and legal concept

Academic liberty is a moral and legal concept expressing the conviction that the freedom of research by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy likewise 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 government) without beingness fear of repression, job loss, or imprisonment. While the core of academic liberty covers scholars interim 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.[ane] [2] It is a blazon of freedom of spoken communication.

Bookish freedom is a contested event and, therefore, has limitations in practice. In the United states of america, for example, according to the widely recognized "1940 Statement on Bookish Freedom and Tenure" of the American Association of Academy Professors, teachers should exist careful to avert controversial matters that are unrelated to the subject area discussed. When they speak or write in public, they are free to express their opinions without fright from institutional censorship or subject field, but they should bear witness restraint and clearly indicate that they are non speaking for their institution.[3] Academic tenure protects academic freedom by ensuring that teachers can exist fired merely for causes such equally gross professional incompetence or behavior that evokes condemnation from the academic customs itself.[iv]

Historical background [edit]

Michael Polanyi argued that academic freedom was a primal necessity for the production of true cognition.

Although the notion of academic liberty has a long implicit history (Leiden Academy, founded in 1575, birthplace of the modernistic concept)[ commendation needed ], the evolution of this thought cannot be separated from Wilhelm von Humboldt. Humboldt was a philosopher and linguist who was given the authority to create a new university in Berlin in the early 19th century. He so founded a university that adhered to two principles of academic liberty: freedom of scientific inquiry and the unity between research and teaching. According to Humboldt, the key proposition underlying the principles of academic freedom was to uphold the view that science is non something that has already been found but as knowledge that will never exist fully discovered and, nevertheless, needs to be searched for unceasingly. The university he founded later became a model and inspiration for modern colleges in Frg and universities in the W.[5]

The concept of academic freedom was also clearly formulated in response to the encroachments of the totalitarian state on science and academia in full general for the furtherance of its own goals. For instance, in the Soviet Wedlock, scientific research was brought under strict political control in the 1930s. A number of research areas were declared "bourgeois pseudoscience" and forbidden, notably genetics[six] (see "Lysenkoism") and sociology.[7] 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 Office of Scientific discipline in 1939.

In dissimilarity to this arroyo, Michael Polanyi argued that a structure of freedom is essential for the advocacy 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.[8]

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 Social club for Freedom in Science.[9] The lodge promoted a liberal conception of scientific discipline equally costless enquiry against the instrumental view that scientific discipline should be primarily to serve the needs of society.[10]

In a series of manufactures, 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 gratis market. Just as consumers in a free market make up one's mind the value of products, science is a spontaneous order that arises as a consequence of open up debate amongst specialists. Science can therefore only flourish when scientists have the liberty to pursue truth as an stop in itself:

[Southward]cientists, freely making their own option of bug 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 consequence which is unpremeditated past whatsoever of those who bring information technology nearly.

Whatsoever attempt to organize the grouping ... 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 [edit]

Proponents of academic liberty believe that the freedom of research by students and faculty members is essential to the mission of the university. They debate 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 detect themselves targeted for public vilification, job loss, imprisonment, or even death. For example, in N Africa, a professor of public wellness discovered that his country's infant mortality rate was higher than government figures indicated. He lost his job and was imprisoned.[11] [12]

The fate of biology in the Soviet Union is also cited[ citation needed ] as a reason why society has an involvement in protecting bookish liberty. A Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko rejected Western science – so focused primarily on making advances in theoretical genetics, based on research with the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) – and proposed a more socially relevant arroyo to farming that was based on the collectivist principles of dialectical materialism. (Lysenko called this "Michurinism", but information technology is more popularly known today equally Lysenkoism.) Lysenko'southward 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 decease of hundreds of Soviet scientists. Lysenko'due south ideas were so implemented on collectivised farms in the Soviet Spousal relationship and Mainland china. Famines that resulted partly from Lysenko's influence are believed to have killed 30 million people in China alone.[13]

AFAF (Academics For Academic Freedom) of the Great britain[fourteen] is a campaign for lecturers, academic staff and researchers who want to make a public statement in favour of gratuitous enquiry and free expression. Their statement of Academic Freedom has 2 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 take no correct to adjourn the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use information technology every bit grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal.

AFAF and those who concur with its principles believe that information technology is important for academics to be able not but to express their opinions, but as well 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.

Sociologist Ruth Pearce argued that the concept of academic freedom exists to protect scholarship from censure by country or religious authorities, and non to defend intolerance.[15]

For academic staff [edit]

The concept of academic freedom equally a correct of faculty members is an established part of nigh legal systems. While in the United States the constitutional protection of academic liberty derives from the guarantee of gratuitous speech nether the Beginning Amendment, the constitutions of other countries (particularly in ceremonious police force systems) typically grant a separate correct to free learning, teaching, and research.

Canada [edit]

During the interwar years (cir. 1919–1939) Canadian academics were informally expected to exist apolitical, lest they bring problem to their corresponding 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 office in gimmicky 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 move in Canada who held bookish positions, began to find themselves in precarious positions with their university employers. Frank H. Underhill, for example, faced criticism from inside and without academia and almost 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 weather condition changed chop-chop, merely 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 limited opinions about them.

In 2020, the University of Ottawa suspended one of its teachers for using the n-word in a metalinguistic way, which sparked a controversy over academic liberty.

Communist china [edit]

Academic freedom is severely limited in Mainland china.[sixteen] [17] [18] Academics accept noted an incentive not to limited 'wrong' opinions near problems sensitive to the Government of Prc and the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP).[xix] [twenty] These efforts have been effective in causing academics to cocky-censor and shift academic discourse.[21] [22]

In Dec 2020, the Associated Press reported that Cathay was controlling scientific research into the origins of COVID-19 under directly orders from CCP general secretarial assistant Xi Jinping. According to the report, an gild by China'southward State Quango required all research to be canonical past a chore force under their management, saying scientific publication should exist orchestrated like "a game of chess", warning that those who publish without permission volition exist held accountable.[23] [24]

France [edit]

Professors at public French universities and researchers in public inquiry laboratories are expected, as are all ceremonious servants, to comport in a neutral fashion and to non favor whatsoever detail political or religious betoken of view during the course of their duties. However, the bookish freedom of university professors is a fundamental principle recognized past the laws of the Republic, as defined past the Constitutional Quango; furthermore, statute law declares about higher instruction that "teachers-researchers (university professors and assistant professors), researchers and teachers are fully independent and bask full freedom of spoken communication in the course of their enquiry and instruction activities, provided they respect, following academy traditions and the dispositions of this lawmaking, principles of tolerance and objectivity".[25] The nomination and promotion of professors is largely done through a process of peer review rather than through normal administrative procedures.

Germany [edit]

The German Constitution (German: Grundgesetz) specifically grants academic freedom: "Art and science, research and pedagogy are free. Freedom of teaching does not absolve from loyalty to the constitution" (Fine art. v, 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 encompass 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 correct 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'south right to determine an individual course of study. Finally, Freiheit der Wissenschaft permits academic self-governance and grants the university control of its internal diplomacy.

Ireland [edit]

Protections for academic liberty are provided in Section 14 of the 1997 Universities Act.[26] It provides academics with protection for research, didactics and other activity "to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions" without beingness disadvantaged.

Mauritius [edit]

In Mauritius the academic staff accept 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 Liberty of Assembly and Clan, Protection of Freedom to Establish schools and the Protection from Discrimination.[27] In a 2012 paper on the University of Mauritius the writer states that although there are no records of corruption of human rights or freedom of the country "subtle threats to freedom of expression do exist, specially with regard to criticisms of ruling political parties and their leaders as well as religious groups."[28] The government of Mauritius endorses the exercise of academic freedom in the tertiary institutions of the land.[28] Academic freedom became a public result in May 2009 when the University of Republic of mauritius spoke out against the previous vice chancellor Professor I. Fagoonee, who had forwarded a round sent by the Ministry of Instruction to academics.[28] This circular targeted public officers and required them to consult their superiors before speaking to the press. Co-ordinate to the paper, academics were bellyaching by the fact that the vice chancellor had endorsed the round by sending information technology to them when it was addressed to public officers.[28] In an interview the vice- chancellor stated that while academics were complimentary to speak to the press they should not compromise university policy or government policy.[28] An academic spoke to the prime number minister and the event was eventually taken upwards to parliament.[28] The vice chancellor was so required to footstep down.[28] In return the government publicly endorsed the practice of bookish freedom.[28]

The institutional bureaucracy and the dependence on the state for funds has restricted the liberty of academics to criticize government policy.[28] An interview with Dr. Kasenally an educator at the University of Mauritius expresses her views on academic freedom in the university.[28] The professor states that in 1970s to 1980s the university was at the forefront of debates.[28] Merely in the 1990s the university stepped away from controversial debates.[28] In 1986, the rights of academics to engage in politics was removed to curtail academic freedom.[28] Academics at the University of Mauritius accept thus been encouraged to not express their views or ideas especially if the views oppose those of the management or government.[28] While there have been no cases of arrests or extreme detention of academics, in that location is a fear that it would hinder their career progress peculiarly at the level of a promotion thus, the academics try to avoid participating in controversial debates.[28]

Netherlands [edit]

In the Netherlands the academic freedom is limited. In November 1985 the Dutch Ministry of Instruction published a policy newspaper titled Higher Education: Autonomy and Quality.[29] This paper had a proposal that steered away from traditional education and informed that the hereafter of higher education sector should not be regulated by the central government.[29] In 1992 the Law of Higher Education and Research (Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek, article one.6) was published and became constructive in 1993.[29] However, this law governs only sure institutions.[29] Furthermore, the higher up provision is office of an ordinary statute and lacks constitutional status, then it tin be changed anytime by a elementary majority in Parliament.

New Zealand [edit]

Academic freedom pertains to forms of expression by academic staff engaged in scholarship and is defined by the Education Human action 1989 (s161(two)) as: a) The freedom of academic staff and students, inside the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to land 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 bailiwick affair of courses taught at the university; d) The liberty of the academy and its staff to teach and assess students in the fashion they consider best promotes learning; and e) The freedom of the academy through its quango and vice-chancellor to appoint its own staff. [30]

Philippines [edit]

The 1987 Philippine Constitution states that, "Academic Freedom shall exist enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning."[31] Philippine jurisprudence and courts of law, including the Philippine Supreme Court tend to reflexively defer to the institutional autonomy of college 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.[32] A closely watched case was the controversial instance 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 inside the faculty of the Sociology Department. This decision was sustained upon appeal past the dissenting kinesthesia and Professor Raymundo to the Academy of the Philippines at Diliman Chancellor Sergio Southward. Cao; and though the example was elevated to University of the Philippines Organization President Emerlinda R. Roman, Roman denied the appeal which was elevated past Professor Raymundo to the university's lath 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 Liberty of the department in not granting her tenure, but in request for transparency in how the Academic Freedom of the section was exercised, in keeping with traditions inside the Academy of the Philippines in providing a basis that may be subject area to peer review, for Academic decisions fabricated under the curtain of Academic Freedom.

S Africa [edit]

The S African Constitution of 1996 offers protection of academic freedom and the freedom of scholarly research.[33] Academic freedom became a main principle for higher education by 1997.[33] Three principal threats are believed to jeopardize bookish freedom: regime regulations, excessive influence of individual sector sponsor on a academy, and limitations of freedom of spoken language in universities.[33]

In that location have been an affluence of scandals over the restricted bookish liberty at a number of universities in South Africa.[34] The University of KwaZulu-Natal received fame over its restricted academic liberty and the scandal that occurred in 2007.[34] In this scandal a sociology lecturer, Fazel Khan was fired in Apr 2007 for "bringing the university into disrepute" after he released data to the news media.[34] Co-ordinate to Khan he had been airbrushed from a photo in a campus publication because of his participation in a staff strike last February.[34] In light of this scandal the South African Council on Higher Didactics released a report stating that the state is influencing academic freedom.[34] In particular, public universities are more than susceptible to political pressure because they receive funds from the public.[34]

United Kingdom [edit]

The Robbins Report on College Educational activity,[35] commissioned by the British government and published in 1963, devoted a total chapter, Chapter XVI, to Academic freedom and its scope. This gives a detailed discussion of the importance attached both to liberty of individual academics and of the institution itself. In a world, both and so and now, where illiberal governments are all too ready to attack freedom of expression, the Robbins committee saw the (then) statutory protection given to bookish freedom as giving some protection for society as a whole from whatever temptation to mount such attacks.

When Margaret Thatcher's regime sought to remove many of the statutory protections of bookish freedom which Robbins had regarded every bit and so of import, she was partly frustrated by a hostile amendment to her beak in the House of Lords. This incorporated into what became the 1988 Educational activity Reform Human action, the legal right of academics in the U.k. '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 accept'.[36] These principles of academic freedom are thus articulated in the statutes of most UK universities. Professor Kathleen Stock formerly of University of Sussex resigned from her role due to controversy from students and the media regarding her transphobic views.[37] In response to such concerns, the Equality and Homo Rights Commission has issued guidance.[38] The Guidance provides detailed procedures for universities to consider in determining whether or not specific events can become ahead. It also provides ways to reduce whatever potential barriers for freedom of speech in regards to specific events. The guidance also makes clear the statutory requirement of universities to ensure they protect liberty of speech on campus still likewise equally compliance with the Foreclose Strategy and the Equality Deed 2010. In 2016 the Warden of Wadham College Oxford, a lawyer previously Director of Public Prosecutions, pointed out that the Bourgeois government's anti-terrorism "Prevent" strategy legislation has placed on universities 'a specific enforceable duty ... to preclude the expression of views that are otherwise entirely compatible with the criminal police force'.[39]

United States [edit]

In the United States, bookish freedom is by and large taken as the notion of bookish liberty divers past the "1940 Statement of Principles on Bookish Freedom and Tenure", jointly authored by the American Clan of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges (AAC, now the Association of American Colleges and Universities).[twoscore] These principles country that "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject."[40] The argument also permits institutions to impose "limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims", so long equally they are "conspicuously stated in writing at the time of the appointment".[40] The Principles have just the character of individual pronouncements, not that of binding constabulary.

Vii 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 torso, works with these same institutions. The AAUP does not always hold with the regional accrediting bodies on the standards of protection of academic liberty and tenure.[41] The AAUP lists (censures) those colleges and universities which it has found, after its own investigations, to violate these principles.[42] There is some example police in the United States that holds that teachers are express in their academic freedom.[ citation needed ]

Academic freedom for colleges and universities (institutional autonomy) [edit]

A prominent feature of the English university concept is the freedom to appoint kinesthesia, prepare standards and acknowledge students. This ideal may be better described as institutional autonomy and is distinct from any liberty is granted to students and faculty by the institution.[43]

The Supreme Court of the Usa said that bookish freedom ways a academy tin "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."[44] [45] [46] [47]

In a 2008 case, a federal court in Virginia ruled that professors have no academic liberty; all academic liberty resides with the university or college.[46] In that case, Stronach v. Virginia State University, a district courtroom judge held "that no ramble right to academic freedom exists that would prohibit senior (university) officials from changing a grade given past (a professor) to ane of his students."[46] The courtroom relied on mandatory precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Sweezy five. New Hampshire [45] and a case from the 4th excursion court of appeals.[46] [48] The Stronach courtroom besides relied on persuasive cases from several circuits of the courts of appeals, including the first,[49] third,[50] [51] and 7th[52] circuits. That court distinguished the situation when a university attempts to coerce a professor into changing a grade, which is conspicuously in violation of the Commencement Subpoena, from when academy officials may, in their discretionary authority, change the course upon appeal by a student.[46] [53] The Stronach case has gotten significant attending in the academic community as an of import precedent.[54]

Relationship to freedom of speech [edit]

Academic freedom and free spoken communication rights are not coextensive, although this widely accepted view has been recently challenged past an "institutionalist" perspective on the Start Amendment.[55] Bookish freedom involves more than speech communication rights; for example, it includes the right to determine what is taught in the classroom.[56] 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 clear their own opinions without the fright from institutional restriction or penalty, but they are encouraged to evidence restraint and clearly specify that they are non speaking for their institution.[57] In do, academic freedom is protected by institutional rules and regulations, letters of appointment, kinesthesia handbooks, commonage bargaining agreements, and academic custom.[58]

In the U.S., the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Commencement Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of spoken language, or of the printing...." By extension, the Outset Amendment applies to all governmental institutions, including public universities. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that academic freedom is a Starting time Amendment right at public institutions.[59] Notwithstanding, the United states of america' Showtime Subpoena has generally been held to not apply to individual institutions, including religious institutions. These individual institutions may accolade freedom of spoken communication and academic freedom at their discretion.

Controversies [edit]

Evolution debate [edit]

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

Critics of the movement claim intelligent pattern is religiously motivated pseudoscience and cannot be allowed into the curriculum of US public schools due to the Showtime Amendment to the Usa Constitution, often citing Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Schoolhouse District as legal precedent.[60] [61] They also decline the allegations of discrimination against proponents of intelligent blueprint, of which investigation showed no bear witness.[62]

A number of "academic freedom bills" have been introduced in land legislatures in the United States between 2004 and 2008. The bills were based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute,[63] the hub of the Intelligent Design motion, and derive from linguistic communication originally drafted for the Santorum Subpoena in the United states of america 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.[64] The American Association of Academy Professors has reaffirmed its opposition to these bills, including any portrayal of creationism as a scientifically apparent alternative and whatever misrepresentation of evolution as scientifically controversial.[65] [66] Every bit of June 2008[update], only the Louisiana nib has been successfully passed into law.[ citation needed ]

Communism [edit]

In the 20th century and particularly the 1950s during McCarthyism, there was much public engagement in print on Communism's part in academic freedom, e.thou., Sidney Hook's Heresy, Yes–Conspiracy, No [67] and Whittaker Chambers' "Is Bookish Freedom in Danger?"[68] among many other books and articles.

Republican Party platform [edit]

Since 2014, Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier,[69] [70] and American Mathematical Order Vice President Abigail Thompson[71] accept contended that academics are asked to support multifariousness initiatives, and are discouraged from voicing opposition to equity and inclusion through self-censorship, as well equally explicit promotion, hiring, and firing.[72] [73]

Pontifical universities [edit]

Pontifical universities around the world such every bit 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 Republic of peru depend for their condition as pontifical universities and for the terms of academic freedom on the Pope through the Congregation for Catholic Teaching. The terms of academic liberty at ecclesiastical institutions of didactics are outlined in the apostolic constitution Sapientia Christiana.[74]

Specific cases [edit]

While some controversies of academic freedom are reflected in proposed laws that would bear on large numbers of students through unabridged regions, many cases involve private academics that limited 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 [edit]

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'south project of sending free blacks to (not "back to") Africa, specifically Liberia, and opposing freeing slaves unless they agreed to go out the United States immediately. The Social club, whose founders and officers were Southern slaveowners, provided funding for existing free blacks to relocate to Liberia, believing that gratuitous blacks caused unrest amongst 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 fence was the rejection of the Society'southward plan, which at all-time only helped a few 1000, in favor of abolitionism: the immediate, consummate, and uncompensated freeing of all slaves.

The trustees of the Seminary, fearing a repeat of the anti-abolitionist Cincinnati riots of 1829, prohibited whatever further "off-topic" discussions", overruling the faculty in the process. As a result, the vast bulk of the pupil trunk left Lane (the "Lane Rebels") to become the initial grade of the new Oberlin Collegiate Institute. They get-go obtained a written guarantee from the Oberlin trustees that in that location would exist no limits on discourse, and that the kinesthesia, not the trustees, would control the internal affairs of the school.[75]

The Bassett Affair at Duke University [edit]

The Bassett Affair at Duke University in North Carolina in the early on 20th century was an important consequence in the history of academic freedom.[76] 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 higher threatened to resign en masse if the lath gave in to political pressures and asked Bassett to resign.[77] He resigned later on "parents were urged to withdraw their children from the college and churchmen were encouraged not to recommend the college to perspective students."[77] President Teddy Roosevelt later praised Bassett for his willingness to express the truth equally he saw it.

Professor Mayer and DeGraff of The University of Missouri [edit]

In 1929, Experimental Psychology Professor Max Friedrich Meyer and Folklore 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 nearly attitudes towards partners' sexual tendencies, modern views of matrimony, divorce, extramarital sexual relations, and cohabitation.[78] [79] The university was subsequently censured past the American Association of University Professors in an early example regarding academic freedom due a tenured professor.[80]

Professor Rice of Rollins Higher [edit]

In a famous case investigated by the American Association of University Professors, President Hamilton Holt of Rollins Higher in March 1933 fired John Andrew Rice, an atheist scholar and unorthodox teacher, whom Holt had hired, along with iii other "gold personalities", in his push to put Rollins on the cutting edge of innovative education. Holt and so required all professors to make a "loyalty pledge" to keep their jobs. The American Clan of Academy 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.[81]

William Shockley [edit]

In 1978, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, electronics inventor, and electric engineering professor, William Shockley, was concerned near relatively loftier reproductive rates amid people of African descent, considering he believed that genetics doomed blackness people to be intellectually inferior to white people. He stated that he believed his piece of work on race to be more important than his work leading to the Nobel prize.[82] He was strongly criticized for this stance, which raised some concerns well-nigh whether criticism of unpopular views of racial differences suppressed academic freedom.[83]

President Summers of Harvard [edit]

In 2006, Lawrence Summers, while president of Harvard University, led a word that was intended to identify the reasons why fewer women chose to written report science and mathematics at advanced levels. He suggested that the possibility of intrinsic gender differences in terms of talent for science and mathematics should exist explored. He became the target of considerable public backlash.[84] His critics were, in turn, accused of attempting to suppress academic freedom.[85] Due to the adverse reception to his comments, he resigned later a v-yr tenure. Another significant factor of his resignation was several votes of no-conviction placed by the deans of schools, notably multiple professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.[86]

Duke Lacrosse Scandal [edit]

The 2006 scandal in which several members of the Duke Lacrosse team were falsely accused of rape raised serious criticisms against exploitation of bookish freedom by the academy and its faculty to press judgement and deny due process to the three players accused.[87]

Professor Khan of the University of KwaZulu-Natal [edit]

In 2006 trade matrimony leader and sociologist Fazel Khan was fired from the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, S Africa later taking a leadership part in a strike.[88] In 2008 international business organization was likewise expressed at attempts to discipline 2 other academics at the same university – Nithiya Chetty and John van der Berg – for expressing concern about bookish freedom at the academy.[89]

[edit]

J. Michael Bailey wrote a popular science-style book, The Homo Who Would Be Queen, the idea that trans women are motivated past sexuality. The volume was heavily criticized past many academics, including Andrea James who said information technology exploited vulnerable people, especially children, Dr. Dreger who establish that the book misrepresented those it portrayed and "did not authorize as scientific inquiry", and Lynn Conway who found the tone of the volume abusive and said that it was a recipe for further discrimination. In 2007 Dr. Conway and Dr. McCloskey filed formal complaints with Northwestern University accusing of Bailey of grossly violating scientific standards "by conducting intimate research observations on human subjects without telling them that they were objects of the study." They also filed a complaint with Illinois land regulators, requesting that they investigate Bailey for practicing psychology without a license.[90] Other academics, have defendant him of sexual misconduct.[90]

Professor Li-Ann of New York University School of Law [edit]

In 2009 Thio Li-ann withdrew from an appointment at New York University School of Police force after controversy erupted virtually some anti-gay remarks she had made, prompting a discussion of bookish freedom inside the constabulary school.[91] [92] Subsequently, Li-ann was asked to step down from her position in the NYU Law School.[93]

Professor Robinson of the University of California at Santa Barbara [edit]

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.[94] Robinson was fired from the university, but after charges were dropped later on a worldwide campaign against the management of the university.[95]

The Diliman Thing of the University of the Philippines [edit]

The University of the Philippines at Diliman thing where controversy erupted after Professor Gerardo A. Agulto of the Higher of Business concern Administration was sued by MBA graduate pupil Chanda R. Shahani for a nominal amount in damages for failing him several times in the Strategic Management portion of the Comprehensive Test. Agulto refused to give a detailed ground for his grades and instead invoked Academic Freedom while Shahani argued in court that Bookish Freedom could non exist invoked without a rational basis in grading a pupil.[96]

Professor Salaita of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [edit]

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 nigh Israel.[97]

Professor Guth of the University of Kansas [edit]

Professor David Guth of the University of Kansas was persecuted past 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 information technology exist YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you."[98] Post-obit the controversial comments, Kansas University suspended, simply ultimately immune 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 bailiwick or terminate employees who used social media in ways "contrary to the all-time interests of the university."[98]

Run into as well [edit]

  • Anthony D. Smith
  • Foundation for Individual Rights in Instruction
  • Freedom of education
  • Freedom of speech
  • Hans-Hermann Hoppe – involved in an bookish liberty controversy at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas
  • List of educational institutions airtight in the 2016 Turkish purges
  • Network for Pedagogy and Academic Rights
  • Politicization of science
  • Pedagogy
  • Right to scientific discipline and civilisation
  • Scholars at Risk
  • Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
  • Speech communication code
  • Academy of Austin - proposed U.S. academy announced in response to bookish freedom controversies
  • Urofsky v. Gilmore
  • Bookish freedom in the Middle East
  • Chicago principles

References [edit]

  1. ^ Andreescu, Liviu (2009). "Private academic liberty and aprofessional acts". Educational Theory. 59 (five): 559–578. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2009.00338.x.
  2. ^ Van Alstyne, William (1975). ''The Specific Theory of Bookish Liberty and the General Issue of Civil Liberty''. In The Concept of Academic Liberty, ed. Edmund Pincoffs. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1975.
  3. ^ 1940 Statement of Principles on Bookish Freedom and Tenure, American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges, p. iii .
  4. ^ 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Liberty and Tenure, American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges, p. 4 .
  5. ^ Muller, Steven. "Wilhelm von Humboldt and the University in the Us" (PDF). Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest. 6 (3): 253–256. Retrieved five April 2022.
  6. ^ Glass, Bentley (May 1962). "Scientists in Politics". Bulletin of the Diminutive Scientists. eighteen (five): iii. Bibcode:1962BuAtS..18e...2G. doi:10.1080/00963402.1962.11454353.
  7. ^ Greenfeld, Liah (1988-01-01). "Soviet Sociology and Sociology in the Soviet Union". Annual Review of Sociology. 14: 99–123. doi:x.1146/annurev.soc.14.1.99. JSTOR 2083312.
  8. ^ Michael Polanyi (1958). Personal Cognition. ISBN0-7734-9150-3.
  9. ^ William McGucken (1978). "On Liberty and Planning in Science: The Society for Freedom in Science 1940–1946". Minerva. 16 (1): 42–72. doi:10.1007/BF01102181. S2CID 143772928.
  10. ^ McGucken, William (1978). "On Liberty and Planning in Science: The Society for Freedom in Science 1940–1946". Minerva. xvi: 42–72. doi:10.1007/bf01102181. S2CID 143772928.
  11. ^ Robert Quinn (2004). "Defending 'Unsafe Minds Archived 2010-06-26 at the Wayback Machine.'"
  12. ^ Ralph E. Fuchs (1969). "Bookish Liberty—Its Basic Philosophy, Function and History," in Louis Joughin (ed)., Academic Freedom and Tenure: A Handbook of the American Association of Academy Professors.
  13. ^ Jasper Becker (1996). Hungry Ghosts: Mao'due south Underground Famine. New York: Free Printing.
  14. ^ "Academics for Academic Freedom". UK. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
  15. ^ Pearce, Ruth (2021). "Academic liberty and the paradox of tolerance". Nature Human Behaviour. 5: 1461. doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01214-5.
  16. ^ "Academic freedom in Prc" (PDF).
  17. ^ Zha, Qiang (2012). "Intellectuals, Academic Liberty, and University Autonomy in Prc". University Governance and Reform. pp. 209–224. doi:10.1057/9781137040107_14. ISBN978-1-349-34276-1.
  18. ^ Zha, Qiang; Shen, Wenqin (2018). "The Paradox of Bookish Liberty in the Chinese Context". History of Pedagogy Quarterly. 58 (iii): 447–452. doi:10.1017/heq.2018.22. S2CID 149712417.
  19. ^ Fish, Isaac Stone (2018-09-04). "America's Aristocracy Universities Are Censoring Themselves on People's republic of china". The New Commonwealth . Retrieved 2020-12-29 .
  20. ^ Redden, Elizabeth (2018-01-03). "Scholars and politicians raise concerns nigh the Chinese government's influence over international academe". Inside Higher Ed . Retrieved 2020-12-29 .
  21. ^ "The Terminate of the Harvard Century - Magazine". The Harvard Scarlet. 2015-03-16. Retrieved 2020-12-29 .
  22. ^ https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED588378.pdf[ blank URL PDF ]
  23. ^ "China clamps downwardly in hidden hunt for coronavirus origins". AP NEWS. thirty December 2020.
  24. ^ "Cathay delayed releasing coronavirus info, frustrating WHO". Associated Printing. xx April 2021.
  25. ^ French Didactics Code, L952-ii, French Government.
  26. ^ "Universities Act, 1997". Irishstatutebook.ie. 1997-05-fourteen. Retrieved 2020-12-14 .
  27. ^ Russo, Charles J. (2013). Handbook of Comparative College Educational activity Law. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc. pp. 191–207. ISBN978-ane-4758-0405-viii.
  28. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l k n o Ramtohul, Ramola (2012). "Academic Freedom in a State-Sponsored African University: The Case of the University of Republic of mauritius". AAUP Journal of Bookish Freedom. three: 1–17 – via American Clan of University Professors.
  29. ^ a b c d Russo, Charles J. (2013). Handbook of Comparative Higher Instruction Law. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pp. 207–229. ISBN978-one-4758-0405-eight.
  30. ^ "Teaching Act 1989 No 80 (as at 28 September 2017), Public Act 161 Academic freedom –". New Zealand Legislation . Retrieved x January 2018.
  31. ^ "1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE Commonwealth OF THE PHILIPPINES – CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  32. ^ "Discover of Full Disclosure". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  33. ^ a b c "Academic Freedom statement from the Academy of Scientific discipline of South Africa (ASSAf)". S African Periodical of Science. 106 (3/iv). 16 April 2010.
  34. ^ a b c d eastward f Lindow, Megan (25 May 2007). "Academic Liberty Is Eroding in Southward Africa, Critics Say". Relate of Higher Teaching. 53 (38): A50.
  35. ^ "Robbins Report on Higher Didactics". October 1963. Retrieved fifteen July 2019.
  36. ^ "1988 Pedagogy Reform Act". The National Archives.
  37. ^ Burns, A. (2019). "The rising of anti-trans "radical" feminists, explained". Vocalism.
  38. ^ "Freedom of expression: a guide for higher education providers and students' unions in England and Wales". Equality and Man Rights Committee. 2019.
  39. ^ Macdonald, Ken (February 2016). "PREVENT: Counter-Terrorism and Freedom". Wadham College, University of Oxford . Retrieved xv July 2019.
  40. ^ a b c 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Liberty and Tenure, AAUP "Archived re-create". Archived from the original on 2007-02-08. Retrieved 2006-x-13 . {{cite spider web}}: CS1 maint: archived re-create as title (link), accessed March 23, 2007
  41. ^ 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 establish Brigham Young University to be in violation
  42. ^ "Censure List". AAUP. Retrieved three May 2015.
  43. ^ (Kemp, p. vii)
  44. ^ Regents of the University of California 5. Bakke, 438 U.South. 265, 312 (1978).
  45. ^ a b Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 262–263 (1957) (Felix Frankfurter, Justice).
  46. ^ a b c d e Stronach v. Virginia Country Academy, civil activity 3:07-CV-646-HEH (Eastward. D. Va. January. fifteen, 2008).
  47. ^ "Bookish Freedom of Professors and Institutions - AAUP". www.aaup.org . Retrieved 2021-01-15 .
  48. ^ See Urofsky five. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401, 414, 415 (quaternary Cir. 2000). (Noting that "cases that have referred to a First Amendment correct 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 Subpoena right of academic liberty to make up one's mind for themselves the content of their courses and scholarship, despite opportunities to exercise so".
  49. ^ Lovelace five. S.E. Mass. University, 793 F.2nd 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".)
  50. ^ Edwards v. California Academy of Pennsylvania, 156 F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 1998) ("In Edwards v. Cal. Univ. of Pa., The court held that the Outset Amendment does not allow a university professor to decide what is taught in the classroom but rather protects the university's correct to select the curriculum," as cited in Stronach.)
  51. ^ Brown v. Amenti, 247 F.3d 69, 75 (3d Cir. 2001). (Holding "a public university professor does non have a First Subpoena right to expression via the school's grade assignment procedures".)
  52. ^ Wozniak 5. Conry, 236 F.3d 888, 891 (7th Cir. 2001). (Property that "No person has a fundamental right to teach undergraduate engineering science classes without following the academy'due south grading rules ...." and that "it is the [u]niversity's proper noun, not [the professor]'s, that appears on the diploma; the [u]niversity, not [the professor], certifies to employers and graduate schools a educatee'southward successful completion of a grade of study. Universities are entitled to assure themselves that their evaluation systems have been followed; otherwise their credentials are meaningless".)
  53. ^ See Parate v. Isibor, 868 F.2nd 821, 827–28 (6th Cir. 1989). (Property that "a university professor may merits that his assignment of an exam grade or a terminal class is communication protected past the Get-go Amendment ... [t]hus, the individual professor may non exist compelled, by academy officials, to change a course that the professor previously assigned to her educatee".
  54. ^ White, Lawrence, "Example IN Indicate: STRONACH V. VIRGINIA STATE U. (2008): Does Academic Freedom Give a Professor the Final Say on Grades?", Chronicle of Higher Pedagogy, constitute at Relate spider web site and Chronicle Review commentary and blog. Accessed May 20, 2008.
  55. ^ Run across, for case, Paul Horwitz, "Universities as Starting time Subpoena Institutions: Some Easy Answers and Difficult Questions, 54 UCLA Constabulary Review 1497 (2007)
  56. ^ Litt, Andrew. "At UCLA, free speech communication is suppressed and double standards reign". Washington Examiner . Retrieved 2017-09-26 .
  57. ^ "AAUP. 1940 Statement of Principles on Bookish Liberty and Tenure" (PDF). AAUP.
  58. ^ Donna Euben, Political And Religious Conventionalities Discrimination On Campus: Faculty and Student Academic Freedom and The First Amendment. Archived 2005-12-20 at the Wayback Machine
  59. ^ Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Keyishian five. Board of Regents, 385 U.South. 589 (1967); Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985).
  60. ^ Lynn, Leon (Wintertime 1997–1998). "Creationists Push Pseudo-Science Text". Rethinking Schools Online.
  61. ^ Intelligent Pattern on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover. National Center for Scientific discipline Pedagogy. Oct 17th, 2008
  62. ^ Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement Archived 2008-09-10 at the Wayback Machine, The Professional Staff of the Education Pre-K-12 Commission, Florida Senate, March 26, 2008
  63. ^ "Bookish Freedom" Bill in South Carolina Now Archived 2008-05-20 at the Wayback Motorcar Ed Brayton, Dispatches From the Civilization Wars, May 18, 2008.
  64. ^ Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools, Stephanie Simon, The Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2008
  65. ^ Academic Liberty and Teaching Evolution Archived 2009-12-05 at archive.today Resolutions of the 94th Annual Coming together, American Clan of University Professors. 2008
  66. ^ The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott. Scientific American, Dec 2008.
  67. ^ Hook, Sidney (1953). Heresy, Yes–Conspiracy, No . John Day Visitor. pp. 9–thirteen (two groups), thirteen (publications), 278 (conclusion). LCCN 63006587.
  68. ^ Chambers, Whittaker (22 June 1953). "Is Academic Freedom in Danger?". Life. Time, Inc.: 91. Retrieved 2 February 2018.
  69. ^ "Against Variety Statements". Chronicle of College Education. 2019-01-03. Retrieved 2020-12-29 .
  70. ^ "Onetime Harvard dean's tweet confronting required kinesthesia diversity statements sets off argue". Within Higher Ed. 2018-eleven-12. Retrieved 2020-12-29 .
  71. ^ https://world wide web.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf[ bare URL PDF ]
  72. ^ Friedersdorf, Conor (2016-05-26). "The Perils of Writing a Provocative Electronic mail at Yale". The Atlantic . Retrieved 2020-12-29 .
  73. ^ "My Halloween email led to a campus firestorm". Washington Post. 2016-ten-28. Retrieved 2020-12-29 .
  74. ^ 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
  75. ^ Lesick, Lawrence Thomas (1980). The Lane rebels : evangelicalism and antislavery in antebellum America. Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press. ISBN0810813726.
  76. ^ "John Spencer Bassett and the Bassett Affair". Knuckles University Libraries. Archived from the original on xix March 2008.
  77. ^ a b Rex, William Eastward. (10 September 2013). "The Bassett Affair of 1903". Retrieved 11 July 2016.
  78. ^ Nelson, Lawrence J. (2003). Rumors of Indiscretion: The University of Missouri "Sexual practice Questionnaire" Scandal in the Jazz Age . Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Printing. ISBN0-8262-1449-v.
  79. ^ Broadwell, Percy (February ii, 1930). "Academic Freedom at the University of Missouri: Written report on the Dismissal of Professor DeGraff and the Suspension of Professor Meyer" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on March 20, 2015.
  80. ^ A.J. Carlson (February 1930). "Written report on the Dismissal of Professor DeGraff and the Suspension of Professor Meyer". Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. XVI (ii): 2–35. doi:10.2307/40218216. JSTOR 40218216.
  81. ^ Seymour, Mary (Fall 2011). "The Ghosts of Rollins (and Other Skeletons in the Closet)". Rollins Magazine.
  82. ^ "William B. Shockley, 79, Creator of Transistor and Theory on Race". The New York Times . Retrieved 10 January 2018.
  83. ^ Kilgore, William J.; Sullivan, Barbara (1975). "Academic Values and the Jensen-Shockley Controversy". Periodical of General Didactics.
  84. ^ Bombardieri, Marcella (17 Jan 2005). "Summers' remarks on women depict fire". Boston.com. Archived from the original on 19 January 2005.
  85. ^ Stephan Thernstrom. "In Defense force of Bookish Freedom at Harvard". History News Network, George Mason University.
  86. ^ Finder, Alan (February 22, 2006). "President of Harvard Resigns, Catastrophe Stormy 5-Year Tenure". The New York Times.
  87. ^ James Eastward. Coleman Jr.; Angela Davis; et al. (2009). "The Phases and Faces of the Knuckles Lacrosse Controversy: A Conversation". Seton Hall Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law. Knuckles University School of Constabulary. 19: 181–220. Retrieved January xi, 2018.
  88. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-02-13. Retrieved 2016-02-09 . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Fight for Fazel Khan – An archive of documents on the dismissal of Fazel Khan]
  89. ^ Letter from foreign academics to Mac Mia, Chair of Council, and Malegapuru Makgoba, Vice Chancellor Letter from David William Cohen and 35 others
  90. ^ a b Carey, Benedict. (21 Baronial 2007) "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege." The New York Times.
  91. ^ "Rights for some people". Inside Higher Ed. eight June 2009. Retrieved 11 June 2009.
  92. ^ Tay Shi'an (22 July 2009). "She's non confronting gay people, but against gay agenda". The New Paper . Retrieved 24 July 2009.
  93. ^ Hu, winnie (July 22, 2009). "Citing Opposition, Professor Calls off NYU Appointment". The New York Times.
  94. ^ Helfand, Duke (30 April 2009). "Professor's comparing of Israelis to Nazis stirs furor". Los Angeles Times.
  95. ^ SPME Statement on the Disposition of the Case of William Robinson at UCSB, SPME Board of Directors, June 29, 2009 [ane]
  96. ^ "DILIMAN DIARY". 27 March 2010. Retrieved iii May 2015.
  97. ^ "U. of Illinois Board's Denial of Chore to Salaita Is Unlikely to Quell Controversy". The Relate of Higher Education . Retrieved 2016-02-01 .
  98. ^ a b Murphy, Helen (December 2014). "The Views Expressed Represent Mine Alone: Academic Liberty and Social Media". Scripted. 11 (3). doi:10.2966/scrip.110314.210.

Further reading [edit]

  • Andreescu, Liviu. "Foundations of Academic Liberty: Making New Sense of Some Crumbling Arguments". Studies in Philosophy and Education (2009) 28.6, 499–515.
  • Andreescu, Liviu. "Individual Bookish Freedom and Aprofessional Acts". Educational Theory (2009) 59.five, 559-572.
  • Chesterman, Simon. "Academic Freedom in New Haven and Singapore". Straits Times, thirty March 2012, page A23.
  • Cantankerous, Tom. "Academic Freedom and the Hacker Ethic", Communications of the ACM, June 2006.
  • Ekstrand, Lasse and Wallmon, Monika "Dancing with the Devil? Notes on a Free Academy". The International Journal of Variety in Organisations, Communities and Nations (2008) eight.iii, 171–174.
  • Fish, Stanley (2006-07-23). "Conspiracy Theories 101". The New York Times Op-Ed.
  • Fletcher, Robert Samuel (1943). "The Bookish Freedom Exam". A history of Oberlin College from its foundation through the civil state of war. Oberlin College. pp. 150–166. OCLC 189886.
  • Hofstadter, Richard, Bookish Freedom in the Age of the Higher, Columbia University Press, 1955, 1961.
  • Karran, Terence. "Bookish Freedom in Europe: A Preliminary Comparative Analysis". Higher Pedagogy Policy (2007) xx, 289–313.
  • Karran, Terence. "Academic Liberty: A Inquiry Bibliography" (2009) has over chiliad entries and is freely downloadable equally a pdf from: http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/1763/.
  • Metzger, Walter, Academic Freedom in the Age of the University, Columbia University Press, 1955.
  • Mead, Edwin Doak (September 1897). "Academic Liberty in America: The Collision at Chocolate-brown University". New England Magazine. .
  • Nelson, Cary, No University Is an Isle: Saving Bookish Freedom. New York University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-8147-5859-5
  • Suissa, J and Sullivan, A. "The Gender Wars, Academic Freedom and Didactics". Journal of Philosophy of Education (2021).
  • Russell, Conrad. "Academic Freedom", Routledge (1993) ISBN 0-415-03715-8
  • Sandis, Constantine. "Gratis Oral communication Within Reason". Times Higher Teaching,21 Jan 2010.
  • Tierney, William G., and Lanford, Michael. "The Question of Academic Liberty: Universal Right or Relative Term". Frontiers of Education in Cathay (2014) 9.i, iv–23.
  • Due west, Andrew F. (May 1, 1885). "What Is Bookish Liberty?". North American Review. pp. 432–444.
  • Whittington, Keith Eastward. (2019). Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech. Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0691191522.

External links [edit]

  • Network for Teaching and Bookish Rights, International
  • Academic Freedom Watch, Australia
  • American Association of University Professors
  • Academic Freedom Calendar week
  • Council for Academic Freedom and Academic Standards, United Kingdom
  • Scholars at Risk
  • Lodge for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, Canada
Archives
  • Washington Committee for Bookish Liberty records. 1947-1949. .84 cubic feet (2 boxes).
  • Naomi Achenbach Benson papers. 1895-1961. 19.5 cubic anxiety (40 boxes).
  • Garland O. Ethel papers. 1913-1980. thirteen.00 cu. ft. (xiii boxes).
  • Ralph H. Gundlach papers. 1918-1974. i.47 cubic feet (four boxes).
  • Academy of Washington Function of the President records. 1854-2011. 405.05 cubic anxiety (466 boxes, ii packages, two volumes, and five vertical files). Including: 1 cassette audio tape, xi audio tape reels, 5 film reels, 1 videocassette tape.

henriquezforthis.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_freedom

0 Response to "what is academic freedom and why is it important to teachers"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel