The COR is the perfect place to demonstrate our commitment to DEIA and to student success.  Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) efforts are often challenged because of a perceived tension between a college's commitment to free speech and academic freedom on the one hand, and their commitments to diversity and inclusion on the other.  This perceived tension arises from a misunderstanding of what these values and commitments to both academic freedom and DEIA require. The two can go hand in hand, because inclusivity necessitates the tolerance of a diversity of ideas, as well as a diversity of people, and the empowerment of a broad range of students and faculty to give voice to their ideas. Commonly, however, faculty and administrators perceive a need to choose between prioritizing free speech or DEIA. However, this zero -sum  absolutist perception is an unnecessary and ill-advised choice. Curriculum is one area where we can disrupt this false dichotomy by squarely focusing the conversation on tangible actions and outcomes that highlight the harmonious relationship between academic freedom and equity in our curricular practices. 

While scholars may differ on the exact definition or scope of academic freedom, virtually all agree that one of its most important elements lies in the ability to create a space where a free and robust exchange of ideas can occur. This exchange is recognized as essential for students in learning the process of rigorous academic research and analysis.  Academic freedom allows for students to be introduced to a diverse range of ideas that often contrast and even compete with each other within an academic framework and invites them to participate in a rigorous analysis and comparison of these ideas as a means of developing their own interpretations. According to the American Association of Colleges and Universities, this “clash of competing ideas is an important catalyst, not only for the expansion of knowledge but also in students’ development of independent critical judgment” (AAC&U, 2006). Students participate and benefit from the “robust exchange of ideas” that academic freedom encourages and that the American Federation of Teachers describes as “essential to a good education.” In fact, this important element is also recognized by the Supreme Court, who in Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the State Univ. of New York, 385 U.S. 589 (1967), made the following statement:

The classroom is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas. The nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.

These statements clearly indicate the importance of academic freedom for students; however, they also bring to light the essential role of the individual professor as a member of a faculty in creating and nurturing an academically diverse environment. After all, while students bring in their own experiences and perceptions to the classroom, the responsibility of presenting subjects and ideas within relevant academic theoretical frameworks falls upon the professor. In this way, the professor certainly guides the scope, tone, and direction of a course and becomes the primary receptor through which students engage in these subjects and ideas. Academic freedom plays an important role in that it allows for individual professors, as experts of the subjects they teach, the freedom to shape their courses in ways that allow for those subjects to be viewed and analyzed from different and specific lenses.

Academic freedom allows for, and can encourage, a robust exchange of ideas within an academic setting by ensuring that individual professors have the freedom to design their courses around specific theories even when they contrast with other, more traditionally established ones.  This point becomes even more important when one considers that the historical foundations of modern academia are built upon Eurocentric and patriarchal theories that erased the contributions of Asian, African, and indigenous Americans. Instead, the contributions of European patriarchal society were long presented as “universal” despite the fact that they themselves emerge from particular cultural traditions. This exclusive focus on European values and theories created such an inequity of ideas within academia that, by the middle of the twentieth century, it was difficult for non-European perspectives and concepts to emerge. For students, this inequity meant that their own perspectives would be developed through a singular Eurocentric lens that represented societies of color in two-dimensional, colonized, and racialized terms without opposing narratives and theories that would challenge them. Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (2009) describes this situation as “the dangers of the single story,” when one perspective is emphasized to the extent that it presents negative stereotypes as definitive truths.

What Academic Freedom Should Not Protect

Within a curricular lens, academic freedom does not protect hate speech, nor does it gant the right of an instructor or student to use unsubstantiated materials as if they were grounded in scholarly research. Materials such as these are examples of misinformation at best, and at worst are disinformation if they are presented knowing the materials to be false or salacious.  Curricular materials presented in a context that is contrary to our college’s mission and values should likewise not be expressed with a guarantee of protection, but should instead be challenged. Lastly, Academic freedom does not guarantee the right of an instructor to teach anything they desire in a course, but instead, an instructor must use the course outline of record (COR) to shape and design their course materials. For example, a course on archaeology cannot only include material from calculus with the expectation of that course fulfilling graduation and articulation requirements.  Academic freedom, while difficult to define, must always be understood within the mission and purpose of the college.  In curriculum, courses are shaped and informed by articulation and accreditation standards that are not mutually exclusive from equity and inclusion. Academic freedom, articulation, accreditation, apportionment, and DEIA standards and values are compatible, not conflicting. 

In our efforts to support and uphold DEIAA on our campus, the Curriculum Advisory Committee (CAC) has created four new questions to help guide instructors on reflecting on how DEIA is integrated into the design and implementation of the components of a course:

1) Looking at the course objectives, student learning outcomes, course content, and the sample assignment provided in this proposal, how do these materials reflect and self empower disproportionately impacted student populations in their learning goals?

2) Looking at the methods of evaluation provided in this proposal, what intrusive and proactive communication methods do instructors plan to employ to ensure students remain engaged?

3) Looking at the textbook materials and the methods of evaluation provided in this proposal, how will instructors ensure equitable and affordable access to all course materials and tools?

4) Looking at the methods of instruction provided in this proposal, describe how they meet accessibility standards and/or how will instructors create alternatives to serve students?

CAC has created this website to help credit and noncredit instructors to address the new DEIAA questions for class CORs. If you have completed a Distance Education addendum recently, the new DEIAA questions will be familiar to you. CAC strongly recommends departments and areas work collaboratively to address these questions, reflecting on what DEIAA looks like in your discipline, noting that DEIAA can be approached from a diverse set of approaches. 

Throughout this website, there are downloaded checklists and samples that instructors can use when considering the DEIAA questions. Not only can your responses to each of the four questions list and describe the DEIAA approaches used in a course, you may get inspired to revise existing areas of your COR, such as the catalog description, the course content, or the course textbook. 

Please remember that CAC is here to help! You can always contact your Division or Noncredit Representative, the Chair, or the Curriculum specialists! Lastly, remember that there are no "perfect"  or "right" answers to these questions. DEIAA efforts are a complex process. Your responses are likewise fluid, capturing where the course is currently at in the process of calibrating and recalibrating our curriculum to attain our student-centered DEIAA goals and to deepen the learning experience for all students.

At the top of the homepage, you will find links to pages on the following topics and resources:

• Defining "disproportionately impacted student populations" and best practices 

• Defining "intrusive and proactive communication methods" and best practices 

• Defining "equitable and affordable access" and best practices 

• Defining "accessibility" and best practices 

• Examples of a DEIAA perspective in the class catalog description

• Examples of a DEIAA perspective in the class content

• Examples of a DEIAA perspective in the class objectives and student learning outcomes (SLOs)

• Examples of a DEIAA perspective in the class textbook and other required course materials

• Resources on DEIAA from the state Academic Senates for California Community Colleges (ASCCC)