Academic freedom is a very controversial topic in higher education. Some understand what the term means, others do not. The following is a link to the AAUP website that defines academic freedom: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm.
The following are questions from this Pavela Report. Please feel free to answer only those questions that you want or all of the questions if you want.
1. The title of this report indicates that professors are “losing more ground” on academic freedom due to recent cases. Do you agree? Why or why not?
2. Do you agree with the court’s handling of this case stating that Renken was acting as an employee of the University rather than as a private citizen (as he claimed) and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment? Why or why not?
3. Do you think that if Renken would have claimed academic freedom rather than First Amendment rights as a private citizen that the court would have ruled in his favor? Why or why not?
4. Many individuals view academic freedom as a First Amendment right. They are not the same. First Amendment rights are constitutional rights, which mean that they apply against the state and only against the state; academic freedom attaches against public and private universities, not against the state (Post, 2003). Academic freedom creates protections that are grounded in a view of the purposes of a university (Post, 2003). Finally, the protections of academic freedom are not best conceived as personal rights, but as freedoms and responsibility accorded to the corporate body of the faculty (Post, 2003). Based upon these references, academic freedom and First Amendment rights are distinctly separate. Why do you think that faculty sometimes “confuse” the two?
5. From the Gilmore case, do you feel that the Supreme Court should recognize a First Amendment right of academic freedom that belongs to professors as individuals? Why or why not?
Yes, I agree with the court’s decision that Renken was acting as an employee of the University. He was the PI on the grant and responsible for coordinating it. These types of tasks certainly fall within his primary job duties to teach, conduct research and provide service. I don’t think he was acting as a private citizen because the matter really isn’t of public concern. We don’t have all the details, but it doesn’t seem like the institution mishandled the grant and since the institution gave the funds back there was no financial harm to NSF.
Since we are talking about a federal grant, I just want to remind everyone that grants are awarded to the institution and not the individual PI/faculty member of the institution; therefore it is ultimately the institution’s responsibility to properly manage the grant.
I do agree that professors are "losing ground" on academic freedom. Academic Freedom is a controversial subject and one that many people often associate with protecting "bad professors." As I have worked in higher ed now for a number of years, I realize that Academic Freedom is a very important thing not only for professors but for our entire public education system. As a free society, we must be very careful when we limit freedom of those that teach. Obviously there are times when instructors overstep their bounds but generally academics should have freedom to teach unhindered. One reason that I believe this is that I have a good friend who grew up under Communist rule in Romania. She was a teacher for a while there and related stories to me about how they would monitor everything she taught and was not allowed to teach anything that did not follow the "party line." This example shows why we should, at all costs, protect the freedom of our instructors to teach and research within reasonable bounds without the interference of the government. As our country develops harsher and harsher political arguments, I see this important freedom coming under fire.
#2 Response: I agree with the court’s ruling stating that Renken was acting as an employee of the University. Renken argued that his grant-related tasks were not a requirement of his job but I believe that although obtaining a grant may not have been in his job description, research duties that came as a result of the grant were a part of his university-sanctioned role. My initial thought was that without his job as a university employee, he never would have received the grant. So how could he have considered his criticism of a university-related task independent of his university-hired role?
#3 Response: Because of the content of Renken’s complaint (about the University’s use of grant funds that were related to his line of work/ specific project), I do not think that the courts would have ruled in his favor if he had claimed academic freedom. Although AAUP believes that professors should be “free from institutional censorship or discipline” (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm), I would think that as a state employee, Renken’s statement would be more related to institutional administration and subject to the restrictions of authority since his comments were not research-related. He spoke as an employee out of discontent for an administrative decision not as a professor with a research- based argument or a citizen with a matter of public concern.
Yes. I agree with the court's decision that Renken was acting as an university employee. It seems to me that grant research proposals are job related for faculty members and within their realm of responsibility. Since he was an employee at a public institution, I think academic freedom should be more restrictive in this instance.
I would agree that it seems as if in some instances, the professoriate is losing some ground with regard to academic freedom however, I don't know if I believe this is all together a bad thing. In response to Rick's post, I agree that the last thing we want is to be ruled with an iron fist and for the entire enterprise of education and exploration to be shut down. On the other hand, I don't believe that free and open discourse is without boundaries and balance. What I see as the benefit of some court rulings is a balancing act between rights and responsibility with the university, and in many instances public interest, serving as the center of that balance.
I'm not sure that I entirely agree with the statement that "Professors lose more ground on academic freedom". In the case of Renken v. Gregory I agree that Renken was acting as a university employee and his statements of discourse were absolutely his words as a state employee. I agree with Patrick on providing channels for free and open discourse. It leads me to wonder if issues of academic freedom for professors could balance out with more discussion and communication with department chairs and deans. I recognize that it is important to take a stand on use of grant funds and receiving appropriate satisfaction on the involvement of the university. Have we lost our ability to communicate issues to upper administration and work towards a solution for both sides?
I would broaden the scope to communication in general... perhaps if we (society) would take more time communicating honestly there would be less litigation... in the famous words of Rodney King... "Why can't we all just get along?" -- I still am a supporter of do your job to the best of your abilities... do not burn anything down and cause no harm... life should be good! :-)
It's debatable how much ground is being lost in higher education academic freedom, but I know one thing - it's not something we should be taking for granted. Free speech protection is determined by the environment that you are in and higher education should be maintained as the "active trading floor in the marketplace of ideas (Pavela)."
Academic freedom is as relevant as its ever been due to the intellectual landscape we now live in. I, for one, would appreciate more free commentary than what we experience now. It is hard to find media outlets that go out on a limb - people are scared of the consequences! We have to make sure that phenomenon never permeates itself to higher education...
Academic freedom is a very controversial topic in higher education. Some understand what the term means, others do not. The following is a link to the AAUP website that defines academic freedom: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm.
ReplyDeleteThe following are questions from this Pavela Report. Please feel free to answer only those questions that you want or all of the questions if you want.
1. The title of this report indicates that professors are “losing more ground” on academic freedom due to recent cases. Do you agree? Why or why not?
2. Do you agree with the court’s handling of this case stating that Renken was acting as an employee of the University rather than as a private citizen (as he claimed) and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment? Why or why not?
3. Do you think that if Renken would have claimed academic freedom rather than First Amendment rights as a private citizen that the court would have ruled in his favor? Why or why not?
4. Many individuals view academic freedom as a First Amendment right. They are not the same. First Amendment rights are constitutional rights, which mean that they apply against the state and only against the state; academic freedom attaches against public and private universities, not against the state (Post, 2003). Academic freedom creates protections that are grounded in a view of the purposes of a university (Post, 2003). Finally, the protections of academic freedom are not best conceived as personal rights, but as freedoms and responsibility accorded to the corporate body of the faculty (Post, 2003). Based upon these references, academic freedom and First Amendment rights are distinctly separate. Why do you think that faculty sometimes “confuse” the two?
5. From the Gilmore case, do you feel that the Supreme Court should recognize a First Amendment right of academic freedom that belongs to professors as individuals? Why or why not?
Yes, I agree with the court’s decision that Renken was acting as an employee of the University. He was the PI on the grant and responsible for coordinating it. These types of tasks certainly fall within his primary job duties to teach, conduct research and provide service. I don’t think he was acting as a private citizen because the matter really isn’t of public concern. We don’t have all the details, but it doesn’t seem like the institution mishandled the grant and since the institution gave the funds back there was no financial harm to NSF.
ReplyDeleteSince we are talking about a federal grant, I just want to remind everyone that grants are awarded to the institution and not the individual PI/faculty member of the institution; therefore it is ultimately the institution’s responsibility to properly manage the grant.
I do agree that professors are "losing ground" on academic freedom. Academic Freedom is a controversial subject and one that many people often associate with protecting "bad professors." As I have worked in higher ed now for a number of years, I realize that Academic Freedom is a very important thing not only for professors but for our entire public education system. As a free society, we must be very careful when we limit freedom of those that teach. Obviously there are times when instructors overstep their bounds but generally academics should have freedom to teach unhindered. One reason that I believe this is that I have a good friend who grew up under Communist rule in Romania. She was a teacher for a while there and related stories to me about how they would monitor everything she taught and was not allowed to teach anything that did not follow the "party line." This example shows why we should, at all costs, protect the freedom of our instructors to teach and research within reasonable bounds without the interference of the government. As our country develops harsher and harsher political arguments, I see this important freedom coming under fire.
ReplyDelete#2 Response: I agree with the court’s ruling stating that Renken was acting as an employee of the University. Renken argued that his grant-related tasks were not a requirement of his job but I believe that although obtaining a grant may not have been in his job description, research duties that came as a result of the grant were a part of his university-sanctioned role. My initial thought was that without his job as a university employee, he never would have received the grant. So how could he have considered his criticism of a university-related task independent of his university-hired role?
ReplyDelete#3 Response: Because of the content of Renken’s complaint (about the University’s use of grant funds that were related to his line of work/ specific project), I do not think that the courts would have ruled in his favor if he had claimed academic freedom. Although AAUP believes that professors should be “free from institutional censorship or discipline” (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm), I would think that as a state employee, Renken’s statement would be more related to institutional administration and subject to the restrictions of authority since his comments were not research-related. He spoke as an employee out of discontent for an administrative decision not as a professor with a research- based argument or a citizen with a matter of public concern.
Yes. I agree with the court's decision that Renken was acting as an university employee. It seems to me that grant research proposals are job related for faculty members and within their realm of responsibility. Since he was an employee at a public institution, I think academic freedom should be more restrictive in this instance.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that it seems as if in some instances, the professoriate is losing some ground with regard to academic freedom however, I don't know if I believe this is all together a bad thing. In response to Rick's post, I agree that the last thing we want is to be ruled with an iron fist and for the entire enterprise of education and exploration to be shut down. On the other hand, I don't believe that free and open discourse is without boundaries and balance. What I see as the benefit of some court rulings is a balancing act between rights and responsibility with the university, and in many instances public interest, serving as the center of that balance.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that I entirely agree with the statement that "Professors lose more ground on academic freedom". In the case of Renken v. Gregory I agree that Renken was acting as a university employee and his statements of discourse were absolutely his words as a state employee.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Patrick on providing channels for free and open discourse. It leads me to wonder if issues of academic freedom for professors could balance out with more discussion and communication with department chairs and deans. I recognize that it is important to take a stand on use of grant funds and receiving appropriate satisfaction on the involvement of the university. Have we lost our ability to communicate issues to upper administration and work towards a solution for both sides?
Great comments!
ReplyDeleteTodd asks an interesting question - have we lost our ability to communicate issues to upper administration and work towards a solution for both sides?
What do you think?
I would broaden the scope to communication in general... perhaps if we (society) would take more time communicating honestly there would be less litigation... in the famous words of Rodney King... "Why can't we all just get along?" -- I still am a supporter of do your job to the best of your abilities... do not burn anything down and cause no harm... life should be good! :-)
ReplyDeleteIt's debatable how much ground is being lost in higher education academic freedom, but I know one thing - it's not something we should be taking for granted. Free speech protection is determined by the environment that you are in and higher education should be maintained as the "active trading floor in the marketplace of ideas (Pavela)."
ReplyDeleteAcademic freedom is as relevant as its ever been due to the intellectual landscape we now live in. I, for one, would appreciate more free commentary than what we experience now. It is hard to find media outlets that go out on a limb - people are scared of the consequences! We have to make sure that phenomenon never permeates itself to higher education...