What is academic freedom

Academic Freedom : rights held by educators to engage in academically-recognized expression Free Speech : expression guaranteed to the individual by the First Amendment to the U. Educational institutions at all levels Governments, public institutions and their policies and representatives Source s of this right? Depend[s] on constitutional law, state law, institutional custom and policy, and whether the institution is public or private [7] 1st Amendment to the U.

A female student sued the professor, claiming that he had repeatedly used lewd and graphic language in his English class. They may, however, have certain free-speech-related rights deriving not from the First Amendment but from policies adopted by the institution. In Hong v. Appeals courts in both Renken v. Gregory and Gorum v. Academic Freedom protects disciplinary competence in research, teaching and learning, and public service.

Academic Freedom is always in flux - keep current on emerging problems and practices; engage thoughtfully and prudently. Seek the input and perspectives of colleagues as you contemplate research, publications, digital communications, and teaching that might tempt challenges to your academic freedom.

Build a community of scholars within and across disciplines that regularly shares, reflects on, and offers advice about academic freedom concerns or experiences. Similar to a good peer review, this can strengthen your professional work and preclude unnecessary errors of omission and commission. If questions arise this can demonstrate adherence to disciplinary practices. Keep a detailed record of incidents or situations that have, or you think could, become fodder to challenge your academic freedom.

Be a good archivist of your own practice. Share relevant concerns and materials with professional colleagues. Contact the OAH when you have concerns about specific actions, incidents or policies that violate or threaten to violate academic freedom. Contact: Beth English , Executive Director. Threats or Challenges to Academic Freedom. Program Redesign without Shared Governance. The classroom is peculiarly the "marketplace of ideas.

See also Sweezy v. New Hampshire , U. These Supreme Court cases involved the First Amendment right of academic freedom of individual professors to be free from state regulation: Sweezy involved a professor's speech and Keyishian involved professors' rights not to sign a loyalty oath.

The Sweezy decision also served as the basis for the academic freedom of institutions see below. The Supreme Court, however, has not clearly defined the scope of academic freedom protections under the First Amendment, and commentators disagree about the scope of those protections. Pincoffs ed. Whatever the legal scope, it is clear that the First Amendment protection of individual academic freedom is not absolute. As Professor Van Alstyne has written:. There is, of course, nothing.

Thus, the false shouting of fire in a crowded theater may not immunize a professor of psychology from having to answer for the consequences of the ensuing panic, even assuming that he did it in order to observe crowd reaction first-hand and solely to advance the general enlightenment we may otherwise possess of how people act under great and sudden stress. For a general discussion about the relationship between academic freedom and the First Amendment, see William W.

Metzger ed. The federal constitution was largely designed to regulate the exercise of governmental power only, and, therefore, virtually all of the constitutional restrictions pertaining to academic freedom and free speech apply only to public employers, such as state colleges and universities, and do not generally limit private employers, such as private colleges, from infringing on professors' freedoms, such as freedom of speech and due process.

Bennington College , 72 F. But see Franklin v. Leland Stanford Jr. Stanford has adopted the position that the outcome is the same whether it is viewed as a private or public employer. We thus review Stanford's action as if it were state action. Vanderbilt University , F. Some state constitutions may also provide protections to professors at private colleges.

Schmid , 84 N. Schmid , U. Internal sources of contractual obligations may include institutional rules and regulations, letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, and, where applicable, collective bargaining agreements.

Academic freedom rights are often explicitly incorporated into faculty handbooks, which are sometimes held to be legally binding contracts. Howard University, F. Academic freedom is also protected as part of "academic custom" or "academic common law.

As the U. Howard University :. Contracts are written, and are to be read, by reference to the norms of conduct and expectations founded upon them. This is especially true of contracts in and among a community of scholars, which is what a university is.

The readings of the market place are not invariably apt in this non-commercial context. See Perry v. Sindermann , U. Catholic University of America , F. American University , A. Gale , S. See generally Matthew W. The U. Supreme Court has also recognized a First Amendment right of institutional academic freedom:.

It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment, and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail "the four essential freedoms" of a university--to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. Sweezy, U. See also Regents of Univ. Bakke , U. Just as academic freedom for individual professors is not unbounded, so too does institutional academic freedom have its limits.

Justice Frankfurter's concurrence in Sweezy emphasized the value of academic freedom in academic decisions that require "the exclusion of governmental intervention in the intellectual life of a university. No court has clearly defined the scope of institutional academic freedom. Query: George Washington University recently argued that its institutional academic freedom was violated by the District of Columbia zoning board's requirements because they involved "capping student enrollment and the number of its faculty, interfering with GW's ability to admit academically qualified undergraduates who are unsuited for dormitory life, and placing a moratorium on the construction of non-residential buildings.

Does this government regulation implicate solely a proprietary right of the institution or also its academic freedom? In George Washington University v. District of Columbia , Case No.

The zoning restrictions imposed by the Board only affect the number of student and faculty and where students may live. Based on the "Open Universities" passage in Frankfurter's concurrence in Sweezy , a number of commentators have suggested that institutional academic freedom is triggered only by those institutional decisions that implicate their educational functions, which are subsumed under the "four essential freedoms" to protect the academic freedom of individual professors from outside interference.

For example, Professor Matthew W. Finkin finds "particularly perverse" the application of the term "academic freedom" to institutional autonomy grounded in "an excrescence of property rights. Finkin, "Some Thoughts on the Powell Opinion in Bakke ," 65 Academe: Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors , hereafter " Academe " "Inasmuch as no nexus between the exercise of academic freedom and the claim of autonomy need be shown, the interests insulated are not necessarily those of teachers and researchers, but administration and the governing board; the effect is to insulate managerial decision making from close scrutiny, even in cases where the rights or interests of the faculty might be adverse to the institution's administration.

Institutional academic freedom should. Independent constitutional rights, such as the free exercise clause and freedom of association, may protect the autonomy of private universities, just as the free speech clause may protect the professional expressions of faculty. But these additional constitutional rights, because they do not address the distinctive functions of professors and universities, should not fall under the rubric of academic freedom. Rabban, "A Functional Analysis," at See also Richard H.

Ewing , U. Professor Peter Byrne also recognizes limits to institutional academic freedom. He asserts that "[t]he term 'academic freedom' should be reserved for those rights necessary for the preservation of the unique functions of the university, particularly the goals of disinterested scholarship and teaching.

And so he recommends that "universities that do not respect the academic freedom of professors. This limitation. He also recognizes that "[i]t may be hard to identify what speech or even point of view the university expresses as an institution, distinct from those of individual faculty, students, or administrators.

But see J. Gilmore , and asserting that the majority's "distortion" of his argument "to strip away legal protection for intellectual inquiry leaves [him] distraught". For a discussion of the Fourth Circuit decision in Urofsky v. Gilmore , see infra pages , and Syracuse , F. In most institutions, the faculty has the primary responsibility for those "academic decisions" that determine "who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.

QUERY: To what extent is the legal concept of institutional academic freedom or institutional autonomy dependent upon the First Amendment right of academic freedom for individual professors? In a very real sense, then, the institutional academic freedom recognized in many judicial opinions may be viewed as the sum of acts of individual faculty academic freedom.

Conflict between these two notions may thus become illusory. While courts have not clearly defined either institutional or individual academic freedom, they have, except for the Fourth Circuit, recognized that these legal freedoms co-exist, albeit sometimes in tension.

Accordingly, institutional academic freedom supplements, but does not supplant, the First Amendment academic freedom right of professors. These conceptions of academic freedom—individual and institutional—can be mutually reinforcing in the search for knowledge and truth in higher education, but they can also come into conflict when forces within the institutions themselves threaten the free expression rights of faculty members or students.

For example, in Regents of the University of Michigan v. Justice Stevens emphasized the "faculty's decision" that "was made conscientiously and with careful deliberation" and the need for courts to "show great respect for the faculty's professional judgment.

See also Piarowski v. Illinois Comm. College , F. Ho , F. Despite Supreme Court law and other federal appellate decisions to the contrary, the Fourth Circuit ruled in Urofsky v.

The Fourth Circuit's academic freedom analysis in Urofksy has been roundly criticized as "profoundly wrong. See also Michael D. Gilmore ," 6 RICH. Hancock, "Why Urofsky v. Rabban, "Academic Freedom, Individual or Institutional? Gilmore," 21 REV. As Chief Judge Wilkinson, who concurred in the en banc Urofsky judgment only but dissented from the majority's reasoning wrote:. I offer no apology for believing, along with the Supreme Court. I fear the court forgets that freedom of speech belongs to all Americans and that the threat to the expression of one sector of society will soon enough become a danger to the liberty of all.

Notwithstanding its unsupported broadside attack on the First Amendment individual right of academic freedom, the Urofsky majority itself conceded that individual professors' constitutional rights might be implicated in the application of Virginia's statute prohibiting the viewing of sexually explicit material on state-owned or -leased computers:.

The AAUP's focus is primarily on academic freedom as an individual right of professors. Nevertheless, the Association has, on occasion, addressed on an ad hoc basis the scope of institutional academic freedom in responding to arguments made by college and university administrations in litigation. In some key cases, AAUP has concluded that institutions have academic freedom when a challenged decision involves educational or academic policy and functions as opposed to other nonacademic decisions.

State v. Schmid, 84 N. Schmid, U. In this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the university's argument that institutional academic freedom allowed it to bar from its campus political solicitors who asserted a right of access under the state constitution.

The Association also rejected the university's claim to institutional academic freedom in the Schmid case, because the case did not involve its educational function, but its proprietary interests: Any direct governmental infringement of the freedom of teaching, learning, and investigation, is an assault upon the autonomy of institutions dedicated to academic freedom.

In addition, universities perform functions, such as the selection of faculty, that are inexorably intertwined with the exercise of academic freedom. Freedom of the university is required at certain points in order to protect freedom in the university.

Schmid, at 3. And so, "when the state intrudes into these ["four essential freedoms"] of a university's intellectual life, it erodes a necessary buttress for the protection of academic freedom. University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, U. Filing a nonaligned amicus brief to the Court, AAUP contended that, in this case, no tension existed between the institution's claim to academic freedom and that of individual professors because 1 faculty had primary responsibility for tenure decisions, and 2 the university's policy related to its academic decisionmaking functions and therefore deserved First Amendment protection.

See also University of Pennsylvania Brief at 16 "Institutional academic freedom--the university's right to some degree of autonomy—is a necessary corollary of the First Amendment rights of the individual university professor. Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, U. Davis program unlawfully discriminated against the medical school applicant Bakke, "the state has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin.

The AAUP's amicus brief, which was filed in support of the university, argued that "the selection of an applicant is the result of open discussion and collective effort by the professional group which, presumptively, should be expected to exercise an experienced judgment about the optimal composition of the class selected.

Justice Powell relied on academic freedom in his plurality decision. See also Barenblatt v. United States, U. Ewing, U. More clearly defining the relationship and tensions between individual and institutional academic freedom under the First Amendment will be a challenge for AAUP, colleges and universities, and courts.

Future cases may provide opportunities to refine that relationship through exploration of:. The difference in protections under the First Amendment right of academic freedom between K and postsecondary schools; and.

David M. The courts have applied the "matters of public concern" balancing test to the expression of faculty members at public institutions. See Pickering v. Board of Education, U. Under Pickering and its progeny, courts first determine whether a professor is speaking on a matter of public concern and, if so, whether the professor's speech outweighs the state's interest in an efficient academic workplace. The "content, form, and context of a given statement" is examined by courts in determining whether a particular topic addresses a matter of public concern.

Connick v. Myers, U. Sometimes, however, courts apply the matters-of-public-concern test without special regard for the mission and purpose of higher education. See generally Rachel E. What Is a Matter of Public Concern?

The difference between a "matter of public concern" and a "matter of private interest" is "difficult to draw in many contexts, but is perhaps especially so in the context of classroom speech. Compare Landrum v. Eastern Kentucky University, F.

Lincoln University, F. See also Urofsky v. Gilmore, F. For commentary on the application of the matter-of-public-concern test to professors, see Damon L. Is the conduct "germane to the subject matter"? Consultation with senior faculty in a particular department or discipline can help and protect an administration if proceedings ensue. Is the conduct directed at the entire class, or to a specific individual or group of individuals e.

Is the conduct an isolated incident or part of a pattern and practice of allegedly offensive behavior? Sonya G. Smith, "Cohen v. See also Michael A. Generally, speech by professors in the classroom is protected under the First Amendment if the speech is "germane to the subject matter. Iona College, F.

Are faculty members able to select and use pedagogical methods they believe will be effective in teaching the subject matter in which they are expert?

On the one hand, faculty members are uniquely positioned to determine appropriate teaching methods. On the other hand, faculty members may engage in unprotected speech in the classroom, such as religious proselytizing or sexual harassment.

Hardy v. Jefferson Community College, F. Hardy, an adjunct communications professor, in a lecture on language and social constructivism in his "Introduction to Interpersonal Communication" course.

The students were asked to examine how language "is used to marginalize minorities and other oppressed groups in society," and the discussion included examples of such terms as "bitch," "faggot," and "nigger. The Sixth Circuit found the topic of the class—"race, gender, and power conflicts in our society"—to be a matter of public concern and held that "a teacher's in-class speech deserves constitutional protection.

Vega v. The clustering exercise, which "is intended to help students reduce the use of repetitive words in college-level essays," involves students selecting a topic, then calling out words related to the topic, and then grouping similar words into "clusters.

Administrators did not reappoint Vega, arguing that his conduct "could be considered sexual harassment, and could create liability for the college. Build your knowledge with top universities and organisations.

Learn more about how FutureLearn is transforming access to education. Learn more about this course. What is Academic Freedom? What is academic freedom? Is it just a European idea? In this article, read how the concept of academic freedom has deep, global roots. Share this post. Dangerous Questions: Why Academi It is no that simple for beginner levels. Visit the course. While I am a believer in Academic Freedom I feel we must temper it with common sense because we all have to exist in It is thought provoking.

Inspiring, informative as well as needed for whole academic comunity. The need for academic freedom 04 Oct, What does academic freedom actually mean? A brief history.