Issue Of Academic Freedom Research Articles

Intellectual-HRDs and claims for academic freedom under human rights law

Many human rights defenders operate from within higher education institutions, research institutes, academies, societies and ‘think-tanks'. Many of these academics, researchers and lecturers would recognise themselves as human rights defenders because their academic work is consciously paired with rights-promoting education and advocacy. Others may not set out to be human rights defenders, but are cast in the role after being targeted for attack. Human rights claims arising out of such attacks on intellectual-HRDs, if brought, typically do not include claims for violations of academic freedom. As a result the standards are underdeveloped relative to other human rights claims and the scope of academic freedom violations globally. This may be in part due to a negatively reinforcing lack of familiarity with issues of academic freedom and the available standards for protection among human rights advocates, and in part to the fact that attacks on academic freedom often manifest as violations of other rights under which claims are brought (e.g. wrongful detention or torture). This article argues that existing human rights law would sustain claims for violations of academic freedom as independently and interdependently derived from the rights to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to education. This article argues that including academic freedom claims in such cases has the benefit of providing an additional basis for relief while strengthening the claim for relief on a manifested violation by providing evidence of motive and intent. Including academic freedom claims also has the independent value of addressing the wider harms to the claimant-victim and society that result from attacks on intellectual expression and are not reached by relief on the manifested violation alone, including harms to a claimant-victim's creative, intellectual or expressive work, and widespread chilling effects on creativity, teaching, publication and the free exchange of ideas in society.

Academic freedom in Canadian higher education: Universities, colleges, and institutes were not created equal


 
 
 There has been substantial discussion, research, and debate about the role of academic freedom within higher education, primarily centered on the university model. Not as well documented or understood is the issue of academic freedom within colleges and institutes in Canada. In this paper, we examine the current state of academic freedom in colleges and institutes using a historical analysis of two Canadian provinces, British Columbia and Ontario. Beginning with an overview of academic freedom within universities, we then examine the development and evolution of colleges and institutes and discuss how or if academic freedom applies to them. We consider issues of collegiality, faculty engagement, and governance as they impact the concept and practice of academic freedom within these institutions. We also discuss the different origins, intents, roles, and governance models of universities in contrast to colleges and institutes, which are generally representative of the broader Canadian higher education landscape.
 
 
 

Alliances, Trustees, and Presidents

Leo Welch, chairman of the Board of Trustees at Eastern Illinois University, addresses the issue of academic freedom and the alliance this issue created among the Board, EIU administration, and EIU faculty.

The betrayal of research confidentiality in British sociology

Research confidentiality in Britain is under attack. Indeed, in some quarters the ‘Law of the Land’ doctrine that absolutely subjugates research ethics to law is already a fait accompli. To illustrate the academic freedom issues at stake, the article discusses: (i) the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee’s ban of interview questions about a research participant’s involvement in criminal acts; (ii) the awarding of damages against Exeter University when it reneged on its agreement to uphold a doctoral student’s guarantee of ‘absolute confidentiality’ in his research on assisted suicide; and (iii) the controversy around the UK government’s attempt to obtain confidential records from the Belfast Project − an oral history of paramilitaries involved in the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The article urges British researchers to practice – or, at least, defend the academic freedom of their colleagues to practice – the ‘ethics-first’ doctrine of strict confidentiality that several North American disciplinary associations encourage.

Teaching about terrorism in the United Kingdom: how it is done and what problems it causes

This article presents some of the findings of research on issues surrounding teaching terrorism and political violence at UK higher education institutions. It reports the results of a survey of UK institutions of higher education on their responses to government and other pressures in relation to terrorism. The data show a minority of universities have developed systems, policies or procedures for ‘preventing violent extremism’, while a significant number have developed close cooperation and collaboration with state counterterrorism policies raising potential issues of academic freedom. This article then examines three high-profile cases – incidents where universities, lecturers and students have come under political and legal pressures over the content of terrorism courses or accusations of ‘radicalisation’ on campus. It suggests that these pressures can be and sometimes are resisted, but that they have on occasion effectively narrowed the scope of academic freedom in practise with the danger that a further chilling effect follows in their wake.

Monkey Business: Teaching the Scopes Evolution Trial

The Scopes Monkey Trial is a landmark court case in American history and has often been referred to as “The Trial of the Century.” It provides a curricular platform for understanding changes in American society, populace tensions with shifting social and moral views, gaps in economic prosperity, and the outcomes of urbanization. Studying this pivotal and historical trial – along with the context surrounding it – offers readers a dynamic lens to view powerful social and cultural insights at the beginning of the twentieth century. Additionally, academic freedom issues, which have a history in our nation's courts, (Patterson & Chandler, 2008) as well as current dialogue among educators (see the November/December issue of Social Education), and are at the very center of the Scopes Trial, require critical examination. Most importantly, it exemplifies the type of interdisciplinary content social studies educators should be promoting, a goal of 21st Century Teaching and Learning and Common Core Standards. In this article, we provide a brief historical context setting the stage for the Scopes Monkey Trial, a daily synopsis of significant points in the trial, a rationale for teaching the Scopes Trial, and instructional teaching resources with particular emphasis on books, DVD/media, and web-based materials.

Academic freedom and assessment of student development

Duncan Hill (2011) recently raised the issue of academic freedom and student assessment (grading). By reviewing the existing literature and case law Hill explored, among other things, tensions when...

Environmental education under assault: can instructors teach environmental science without fear?

Environmental science has evolved into a politically charged science branded as ‘controversial’ in the media and academic circles. Instructors may be fearful to discuss certain environmental topics in an academic setting for fear of possible retribution (i.e., academic freedom issues) or accusations of instructional bias. Some college instructors may feel compelled to delete topics from the curriculum. Diluting the curriculum shields students from the opportunity to discuss compelling arguments, deal with complex scientific and value-laden issues, and develop critical thinking skills in a safe, academic setting.

Academic Freedom (La Liberté Académique)

This contribution examines the legal issues of academic freedom both in its individual dimension and on an institutional level. The research is based on a series of decisions from the European Human Rights Court and the Constitutional Courts of Belgium, France and Germany, as well as from the US Supreme Court. Without neglecting cultural differences, the authors try to define some guidelines for a balanced interpretation of the individual freedom in teaching and research that is compatible with the challenges of a modern university.

Free Inquiry and Academic Freedom: A Panel Discussion among Academic Leaders

Robert M. Berdahl, Hanna Holborn Gray, Bob Kerrey, Anthony Marx, Charles M. Vest, and Joseph Westphal Free Inquiry and Academic Freedom: A Panel Discussion among Academic Leaders k e r r e y I was asked earlier, when we had quite a good conversation— and I hope it can take off in the direction we were going, and without necessarily responding to my question—to start with a general ques­ tion. So I’ll just give you a general question: During your time as presi­ dent of the university, did you experience issues relating to academic freedom having to with corporations, having to do with the govern­ ment, having to do with political concerns inside your university, and if so, could you talk about them? b e r d a h l : I spent the last portion of my academic career as chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley. There’s probably no institu­ tion in the country that has had more of a tradition of some contro­ versy revolving around issues of academic freedom and free speech than has the University of California, Berkeley, beginning in 1950-1951, social research Vol 76 : No 2 : Summer 20 0 9 731 with the loyalty oath controversy that broiled around the campus for some period of time; and then the Free Speech Movement in the early 1960s, which was really the beginning of the student movement in the 1960s. So the issues of academic freedom and of free speech have been a part of that campus for some time. I would begin by saying that I think those issues are frequently confused. The notion that academic freedom has its roots in the First Amendment is, I think, not really a very apt description of how and why we have issue of academic free­ dom, because academic freedom is constrained in many ways by our universities. Faculty are not necessarily free to take any position they choose, free of judgment about that position. In their academic disci­ plines they are obviously subjected to very strenuous kinds of evalu­ ations and judgments about positions that they take. So I don’t know that academic freedom and freedom of speech are synonymous or that they have their roots in the same kinds of principles. I thought I would give ju st two examples that arose while I was chancellor at Berkeley and talk about how we threaded our way through them. The first had to do with a graduate student, and the questions of whether or not the issues of academic freedom extend to graduate students who are also teaching assistants. At Berkeley, once graduate students in the English department are advanced to candi­ dacy, they are free to teach a freshman writing course on a subject of their choosing, ostensibly with the approval of the department. But it becomes a seminar on a topic related the graduate student’s research and that will also give students an opportunity to write and have his or her writing evaluated and improved. Since the advent of the web, students simply began posting the courses that they were going to teach, and they didn’t get the review that they did when we had a print version of course offerings. The first any of us heard of this case was when it was reported in the Wall StreetJournal that a graduate student, who was a member of the Palestinian movement on campus, was going to teach a course in Palestinian poetry, liberation poetry. And he posted this on the web. And what caught the attention of the Wall StreetJournal and what 732 social research unfortunately had not caught the attention of the English department, was that he concluded his course description by saying, “Conservative students would be advised to enroll in other classes.” That of course was an outrageous limitation, an unacceptable limitation to impose upon this. But of course the material of the class, and the fact that it was being taught by a graduate student, brought forth a very substantial contro­ versy on campus. The regents became involved. The Jewish community concerned about the pro-Palestinian position that this course developed became involved. The question...

A PLACE FROM WHERE TO SPEAK: THE UNIVERSITY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

ABSTRACT the university is promoted as ‘a place from where to speak’. Academic freedom is examined as a crucial value in an increasingly uncertain age which resonates with Barnett's concern to encourage students to overcome their ‘fear of freedom’. My concern is that the putative university space of freedom and autonomy may well become constricted by those who would limit not just our freedom to speak but also our freedoms to be and to do. Without academic freedom students and teachers, who might be able to fly, will not be permitted to fly. I review issues of academic freedom and free speech raised especially by Berlin, Voltaire, von Humboldt, Mill, Milton and Rorty. I discuss problems raised when free speech is heard by others as harmful and offensive to their beliefs and values. I offer a set of suggestions to ensure that the university may envision itself as a space of freedom, pluralism and tolerance. Finally, I reflect that the university, of all democratic institutions, should be the one which best serves its society as ‘a place from where to speak’.

Tangled Patent Dispute Over 'Free' Drug-Resistance Database

HIV/AIDSA patent dispute among a small European biotechnology company, Stanford University, and one of its HIV/AIDS researchers has triggered a defamation lawsuit, raised issues of academic freedom, and led some observers to call it a battle out of Don Quixote .

Will Teachers Shed Their First Amendment Rights at the Schoolhouse Gate? The Eleventh Circuit's Post-Garcetti Jurisprudence

Since the 1960s, educators have enjoyed a significant (if confusing) array of First Amendment privileges. The confusion resulted from tensions between principles of academic freedom (both of the educator and the educational institution) and the public employee speech doctrine. The Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos threw approximately forty years of First Amendment protections for educators into grave doubt. While Garcetti explicitly declined to address the unique situation of educators, at least with respect to academic freedom issues, the Eleventh Circuit lost no time in adapting the Garcetti reasoning to educational settings, however inexact the fit. This article begins by examining the various doctrinal threads that previously comprised First Amendment protections for educators, and then analyzes how Garcetti and the Eleventh Circuit's incorporation of Garcetti into its jurisprudence jeopardize important First Amendment rights in the educational setting. The article concludes with a proposal for re-thinking the Eleventh Circuit's First Amendment jurisprudence as it applies to educators.

Interrogating the Politics of Post-9/11 Academic Freedom

Interrogating the Politics of Post-9/11 Academic Freedom John Collins (bio) Doumani, Beshara, ed. 2006. Academic Freedom After September 11. New York: Zone Books. $42.95 hc. $22.95 sc. 327 pp. Gerstmann, EvanMatthew J. Streb, eds. 2006. Academic Freedom at the Dawn of a New Century: How Terrorism, Governments, and Culture Wars Impact Free Speech. Stanford: Stanford University Press. $53.00 hc. $24.95 sc. xvi + 241 pp. Much like freedom itself, academic freedom appears to be a concept that generates a superficial consensus (is anyone opposed to it?), only to give way to sharp divergences of opinion as soon as one enters into the philosophical, ideological, legal, and institutional details. In an academic environment that remains deeply marked by the “culture wars” of the 1980s and 1990s, the dilemmas raised by the September 11 attacks and the U.S. response to them have sparked a [End Page 142] new round of debate over the definition of academic freedom, its proper extension, and the existence of threats to its protection. Within such a context, academic freedom occupies a central place alongside a host of other important issues (e.g., workload and compensation, collective bargaining, tenure and promotion policies, discrimination and equity issues, challenges faced by contingent faculty, declining time for research) in the minds of today’s college and university professors. Anyone attempting to grapple with the complexities of academic freedom in the post-September 11 era is immediately confronted with a series of analytical challenges. The first, which might be called macropolitical, turns on the question of how to characterize the particular historical matrix within which academic work is currently taking place. On the one hand, there is the understandable need to focus critical attention on the actions carried out by the George W. Bush administration under the rubric of the “global war on terrorism” and their deleterious effects on the work of teaching, learning, and research. These actions include the infamously Orwellian USA-PATRIOT Act, but also a host of lesser-known steps designed to restrict access to information and exert control over scholarly research. On the other hand, there is a real danger that in focusing on the “trees” of these recent developments, we might find ourselves unable to see the “forest”: the ongoing transformation in the political economy of higher education and intellectual work more generally, a process that predates September 11 and will undoubtedly outlive the “global war on terrorism.” The best analyses of academic freedom today are those that are able to hold all of these processes in play, illuminating how twenty-first-century threats to academic freedom are embedded in a longer trajectory. The second challenge, closely related to the first, concerns the tension between the individual and the collective. The post-9/11 period has given us a series of medium- and high-profile test cases (e.g., Nicholas de Genova, Ward Churchill, Sami al-Arian), the results of which have revealed important patterns in the kinds of protection afforded (or not afforded) to scholars who hold dissident views. At the same time, one must always be mindful of the fact that such cases can easily draw our attention away from the deeper structural factors that are shaping the ideological environment in which all intellectual work takes place. Of particular concern here are the phenomenon of self-censorship, which by definition does not present itself in readily visible form, and the growing influence of private advocacy organizations seeking to punish dissident intellectuals and shape broader curricular, research, and hiring agendas. More generally, the issue of academic freedom can never be limited to questions [End Page 143] of individual free speech, as crucial as those questions are. Academic freedom is always a structural issue, and it can be fundamentally threatened even in a situation where free speech is fully protected. Finally, there is an important geopolitical dilemma to be faced. For obvious reasons, U.S.-based analyses of post-9/11 academic freedom issues are likely to put the U.S. academic environment at the center. Yet here, as always, one must be wary of the danger of U.S. exceptionalism and navel-gazing. The problems confronting academics and students in...

Working Together to Address Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Working Together to Address Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Question: How Should Middle East Studies Address the Issues of Academic Freedom and Academic Boycotts?

Challenges to academic freedom have been much in the news of late, with coverage and interest extending well beyond college newspapers and the publications of our profession.In the United States, there is no question that members of the Middle East studies community have been disproportionately targeted. A number of our colleagues have been victims of ugly smear campaigns regarding their scholarship; several tenure cases have triggered vicious, high-profile “extramural” attacks against junior faculty; and, in a handful of cases, our colleagues have been barred from giving talks or participating in educational events, owing to their political positions on Middle East-related issues. Others from outside this community who have also ventured to engage key regional issues in critical ways have had their invitations to give presentations in policy or academic forums rescinded.

Dictatorship of the Professoriat?

The following interview is with a retired eastern German professor whose career constitutes a case history in the comparative politics of “academic unfreedom”. Professor Erhard Naake was the only Ph.D. student in the history of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) to write his dissertation on Friedrich Nietzsche, whose work was considered “anti-socialist” throughout the history of the GDR regime. Because Herr Naake had the temerity to select Nietzsche as his thesis topic – a philosopher whose work was banned from GDR bookstores and never taught in GDR schools or even universities – he never received an appointment as a professor in a GDR university. Ironically, however, even after the collapse of the GDR in 1989–1990, Herr Naake was penalized by the new powers-that-be in reunited Germany. He once again suffered a violation of his academic freedom when the university evaluation boards, which were composed of western German scholars, refused to let him keep his recently acquired position as a professor and instead summarily fired him, thus leading to his enforced retirement. As we shall see, the dramatic life story of Herr Naake reflects not only complicated issues of academic freedom and communist versus capitalist political values, but also the rich and complex history of eastern Germany both under the Nazis and GDR Communists and within reunited Germany since 1990.

Response on Assembly Action

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Letters to the EditorFull AccessResponse on Assembly ActionHerbert Peyser, M.D., Jerry Rogoff, M.D., and Richard Altesman, M.D.Herbert PeyserSearch for more papers by this author, M.D., Jerry RogoffSearch for more papers by this author, M.D., and Richard AltesmanSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:20 Jul 2007https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.42.14.0028cThe letter to the editor in the June 1 issue by Dr. Michael Cleary, titled“ Politics Detract From Position Statements,” criticizes an Assembly action (subsequently approved by the Board of Trustees and announced in a statement issued in a press release by APA's Office of Communications and Public Affairs). Dr. Cleary complains about recent Assembly actions, commenting that the Assembly's “condemnation of the action of a group of British teachers [calling for a boycott of persons and organizations that do not disassociate themselves from Israel's Palestinian policies] is the most troubling..... [I]t would seem that the Assembly reacted in a knee-jerk fashion to criticism of Israel. The teachers' action was eventually withdrawn, but the Assembly went ahead with its condemnation.” He goes on to urge the Assembly and APA to “steer clear of pronouncements on foreign conflicts.... and to avoid the perception that APA favors one side or the other.”We call Dr. Cleary's attention to the actual language of the action item and the press release and also call his attention to the following facts:This was not carried out in a “knee-jerk fashion.” There was much careful discussion and consideration at the Reference Committee and the Area Councils and on the floor of the Assembly. Matters having to do with the question of a professional organization engaging in politics, APA's tradition and history of such engagements in other situations, etc., were all laid out and discussed, and the necessity for freedom of academic exchange affirmed.If the action and the press release are reviewed, one will see the emphasis on academic freedom, no trivial matter these days. This was the basis for opposition to the British teachers' union proposal by the Royal Society there, the American Association for the Advancement of Science here, and the many scientists and Nobelists around the world. APA joined this distinguished group. And the Assembly did indeed favor one side over another; the side of academic freedom over those who would vitiate it.As for the matter of the British teachers' union proposal having been withdrawn and APA going ahead with its concerns anyway, that British teachers' union had withdrawn the proposal and put it on hold for it anticipated merging with a larger group, which is what it did, and it was not clear what was to happen with the proposal. But the issue of academic freedom remained, and when the merger occurred the boycott proposal came up again from the new organization. The APA policy had been passed and now is official policy, timely, relevant, and necessary.Drs. Peyser, Rogoff, and Altesman are members of the APA Assembly. ISSUES NewArchived

The Southern Association of Teachers of Speech v. Senator Theodore Bilbo: Restraint and Indirection as Rhetorical Strategies

In 1944 Senator Theodore Bilbo called for a teacher of speech at Delta State Teacher's College to be fired for advocating racial equality. In response, the Southern Association of Teachers of Speech sent a letter to the president and regents of the college, rebuking Bilbo. By avoiding the issue of race equality and focusing on issues of academic freedom and free speech, the association's letter displays not only the power of indirection and restraint as rhetorical strategies but also demonstrates a core political identity for academic associations.

Review Editor's Introduction

Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus. By Donald Alexander Downs. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 318p. $28.99 cloth, $19.99 paper.Donald Downs's Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus is an important book. Like his earlier books, it integrates political theory, jurisprudence, and policy analysis to address a matter of contemporary concern. In this case, the matter at hand is directly relevant to all scholars and teachers who work in the contemporary American university. Since this includes most political scientists, it seemed like a good idea to open the pages of the Perspectives Book Reviews to a range of perspectives on the book. I have thus sought out a “balanced” cast of distinguished commentators, in the hope that the juxtaposition of different reviews will help to promote serious discussion of academic freedom issues of concern to all of us. Some of these issues are juridical, and regard the ways in which universities, academic departments, and perhaps even professional associations are called upon to codify “diversity” considerations and balance these with other considerations, including “academic excellence” but also civil liberty and robust debate. Some of them are principally ethical, and regard the habits of mind most conducive to intellectual inquiry and liberal education. These issues are complicated and controversial. In featuring the Downs volume and the three reviews that follow, I sought to stimulate intelligent discussion about them within the political science profession. It is my intention to organize similar discussions of other important books in future issues.