Academic Freedom and Responsibilities
Academic Freedom and Responsibilities
According to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), academic freedom is a teacher or researcher's freedom to investigate and discuss the issues, and to teach or publish findings without interference from political figures, boards of trustees, donors, or other entities. Academic freedom also protects the right of a faculty member to speak freely when participating in institutional governance. Academic freedom is an indispensable requisite for unfettered teaching and research in institutions of higher education. However, academics are responsible to their community of peers because professional standards, ethics, etc. must be followed. By defining the challenges of academic freedom in universities associated with balancing academic freedom and responsibilities, academic freedom will be advanced and protected to develop a healthy creative environment in universities as well as society.
To evaluate the challenges of academic freedom in universities associated with balancing academic freedom and responsibilities, students will identify the current challenges of academic freedom in universities, read a statement of principles on academic freedom and academic tenure from AAUP and then apply their knowledge to solve the case study.
Academic freedom is an essential and defining characteristic of the modern university to work effectively. It provides teachers and professors with the freedom to teach important ideas and encourage critical thinking among students is key to freedom, economic prosperity, and innovation. Students and the community should care about academic freedom because the knowledge produced and disseminated in those teaching and researching is significant for the development of society and the common good. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and should not be guided by the desires of wealthy donors, partisan political aims, religious institutions, or the desire not to offend. Academic freedom has also been considered a key condition to achieve several goals: the advancement of knowledge, the quality of research, the encouragement and support of initiative, innovative behavior, criticism, and variety.
Today, several ongoing processes within higher education have had an impact on academic freedom including some threats:
Pressure from donors or board members. For example, when donors push administrators not to appoint a high-profile faculty member whose views or public utterances they dislike.
Pressure from the community when the content of teaching or research is controversial or academics are asked to prove the relevance or utility of their teaching and research for societal and economic needs; hence, they possibly become less free in setting the ends and the means of their activities.
Strings attached to donations or research funding. For example, donor agreements that fund academic programs and give donors a say in faculty appointments in that program; agreements for corporate funding of research that allow the company to review research findings before publication.
Lack of procedural protections. With about three-quarters of the faculty teaching off the tenure track, many faculty members are vulnerable to being quietly non-reappointed, with no reasons given.
Targeted online harassment. Social media have many potentials to promote academic freedom but also choke it. Educators and alleges discrimination on the basis of their teaching or academic expertise, making them afraid of teaching and affecting the quality of education.
Academic freedom has been a hallmark of the ethic of American higher education. However, the challenge of balancing academic freedom with university community members’ rights to respectful and safe classroom and campus spaces is a complex topic with multiple dimensions that affect both students and faculty. Because of the variety of universities’ definitions and policies, it is impossible to create a single definition or set of standards that will work equally well for all fields of academic study and all institutions in all circumstances. Despite the difficulty of prescribing a universal definition, there are some central principles within universities to support academic freedom along with the following responsibilities:
Colleges and universities should set standards of ethical and professional behavior (Statement on Professional Ethics, AAUP) to individual faculty members and call attention to their responsibility, by their own actions, to uphold their colleagues’ and their students’ freedom of inquiry and to promote public understanding of academic freedom.
Each college and university should develop its policies to shared the responsibility of all members of the academic community (Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, AAUP) for the protection of academic freedom. In particular, focusing on the freedom to learn for students, encouraging them to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for truth.
Plans for ensuring compliance with academic norms should be enlarged to emphasize preventive as well as disciplinary action by working with the administration and other components of the institution, to develop and maintain an atmosphere of freedom, commitment to academic inquiry, and respect for the academic rights of others.
Faculty can provide a more versatile body of academic sanctions such as warnings and reprimands rather than hard punishment or dismissal.
Institutions must design flexible and self-regulated rules to meet local responsiveness and comply with the current challenges.
Dr. Victor Borden shares his thoughts about academic freedom in America’s universities today and the challenges for maintaining academic freedom in modern research universities
Guidlines:
To propose policies to promote academic freedom, you need to distinguish critique from an infringement of academic freedom by following these conditions. These conditions allow for the delineation of cases in which at least one of the three conditions is not fulfilled:
Discrimination and thus a more general kind of unjust treatment of a person engaged in academic affairs.
Infringement of freedom of speech or other non-academic intellectual freedoms.
Mere critique.
Justified critique that leads to justified limitations of someone’s academic freedom
Cases of deep disagreement
Read the case study and answer the questions below:
A case study: States in the US ban the teaching of critical theory threats the academic freedom
49 states have proposed or adopted to ban the teaching of critical race theory in public schools and universities. According to AAUP 2022, twelve states have passed legislation, including Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. None of the state bills that have passed even actually mention the words “critical race theory” but rather, the wording of the laws generally prohibits the teaching of “divisive concepts". The legislations mostly ban the discussion, training, or orientation that the U.S. is inherently racist as well as any discussions about conscious and unconscious bias, privilege, discrimination, and oppression. These parameters also extend beyond race to include gender lectures and discussions. Some principals and teachers who have tried to cover issues such as white supremacy have already been fired or forced to resign. Oklahoma City Community College canceled a fully-enrolled summer course on race and ethnicity because it conflicted with the state’s new law on how to discuss race and racism. Professors at the University of Florida who teach or engage in race scholarship have become political targets and face job insecurity because of the nature of their work.
The expansion of states banning critical race theory comes from the fear that CRT (Critical Race Theory) admonishes all white people for being oppressors while classifying all Black people as hopelessly oppressed victims. Much of U.S. history embeds privilege for whites in access to higher education. White privilege is part of the substructure of racism that guides and propels all aspects of the educational process: from admissions to student retention, and even the curricula. These fears have spurred school boards and state legislatures from Tennessee to Idaho to ban teachings about racism in classrooms. The current anti-CRT legislative movement closely resembles former President Donald Trump’s public attacks on CRT signed Executive Order 13950, “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” (“EO 13950”) on September 22, 2020. EO 13950 asserted antiracism training in the workplace promoted “offensive and anti-American” race and sex stereotypes that falsely misrepresents “our country’s history” and “role in the world.” Although President Joseph Biden rescinded EO 13950 on his first day in office, the purpose of the order fueled a nationwide conservative effort to ban CRT and eradicate discourse of race and racism in educational settings.
As a consequence, laws against teaching critical race theory will cause teachers to self-censor impacting faculty teaching and scholarships. They will avoid mentioning racism, and even gender/sexism affecting not the quality of the lessons but also hiding what students should know. Students are alarmed by how little they have learned about inequality. It can affect how students can approach many theoretical frameworks to help their research or decision-making. Moreover, the bans are controversial policy choices because they run contrary to the pursuit of equity and inclusion in educational environments, as well as the traditional norms of higher education. It promotes more anti-white racism, and cultural division, and threatens the public institution of education. The bans on CRT are also causing university general counsel offices and law firms that represent educational organizations to grapple with the legal and educational implications. What legal avenues do faculty have when they are dissuaded or prohibited from teaching concepts that are foundational to an academic discipline that helps understand and address pervasive social problems? Can faculty or administrators demonstrate their support for opposing racism and sexism on campus or in society generally in other lawful ways? These legal questions are important because they point to the legal, educational, social, and economic costs of anti-CRT bans.
1. Identify the reason for banning critical race theory in the US.
2. Analyze the impacts of anti-CRT on academic freedom in higher education.
3. By using a guideline provided below, propose policies to promote academic freedom on critical race theory along with US laws standards in higher education.
Links
Maria Kronfeldner: Distinguishing between critique and infringement on academic freedom
Distinguishing between critique and infringement on academic freedom to help understand the well-functioning principle before proposing advancing policies.
Tufts Daily: Fear of Losing Donors Threatens Harvard's Academic Freedom
Emphasizes the influence of donors affecting Havard's academic freedom, showing the common challenges of universities today.
NTEU - Key Issues from National Tertiary Education Union
Showing the whole picture of academic freedom and how they suggest universities set policy from the challenges.
AAUP: 1940 Statement on Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure
AAUP updated a statement of principles on academic freedom and academic tenure to promote public understanding and support of academic freedom as well as preserve academic freedom in universities and colleges.
Further information about the ban on the teaching of critical race theory in the US in order to better understand the case study.