This particular Pavela report focuses on academic freedom as it relates to both the first amendment and due process.
1. In the Nichols v. University of Southern Mississippi, a faculty member made a complaint that he was unlawfully dismissed for making anti-gay comments in an instructional setting and the court rejected the complaint. What are your thoughts on the federal district court's decision? How do we balance academic freedom with institutional policies?
2. In Wozniak v. Conry: do you agree with Wozniak's reasoning for not turning in the grading materials? Do you feel academic freedom was violated in this case? What about the notion of due process - do you believe the steps were handled properly? Why or why not?
3. What are your thoughts on government intervention in the intellectual life of a university?
Yes, I think his academic freedom may have been slightly violated in this case because he must follow the universities grading policies. However, I agree with the court that the grading policy is an internal issue and not something the courts should get involved with. Overall, if this faculty member has an issue with the limited amount of academic freedom in regards to grades at this university, he could always leave and go to a university that grants more academic freedom. Every university is different and it’s up to the professor to find the right fit. In addition, I think Wozniak lost his due process right when he refused to explain himself to the Dean. That really should have been the first step for due process and would have fulfilled the “some kind of hearing” rule that courts understand.
I found the Wozniak v. Conroy case to be very interesting for several different reasons. The opening statement in the “facts of the case” states that after teaching for 28 years, Wozniak “became a rebel”. It sounds like he might have been a rebel, or at least a thorn in other people’s sides, for some time since he had not made full professor after all those years…
Initially, I was somewhat surprised by the Court’s statement that there was “no material dispute” since the professor openly chose to refuse to follow the University's established grading rules and was therefore openly insubordinate. I had felt fairly certain the Court would have refused to tell a professor how to grade, leaving this decision to the professor. In my mind, this seemed like a grading issue, and one the Courts tend to shy away from, rather than an employment issue of insubordination. However, I then thought back to cases such as Lovelace v. Southeastern Massachusetts University where the Court ruled on the side of the institution to set the standards over grading, and other cases which confirm the “university as speaker.”
It’s hard to judge specifically whether Wozniak’s rights to due process were violated since we don’t have access to the University of Illinois’ policy regarding due process; however, it certainly seems that he was offered several opportunities to plead his case through the “multiple levels of review within the University” – and certainly he gave up his right to due process by failing to meet with the Dean who gave him “one last chance to comply or explain himself.”
Simply put, I honestly think that life would be much easier if people would just follow the rules. Now, of course there are times when it is necessary to stand up for justice or argue for change if a particular policy or process does not work well. From what was presented in the Pavela Report, this 28-year veteran (Louis Wozniak) saw fit to challenge an academic system seemingly without cause. The institution seemed to be clear in its intent to provide a consistent grading scale but the professor failed to comply without explanation. When he was given the opportunity to speak for himself and take advantage of his “due process”, he chose not to do so. Therefore, I believe he relinquished his rights with regard to this issue. Although I don’t feel that his rights of academic freedom were violated, I do believe that his sanctions may have been a bit harsh. On the other hand, violation of academic freedom could have been considered if Professor Wozniak had complied with all of the institutional policies then the University questioned his grading or required him change grades. In such cases, professors often express themselves academically by communicating their expectations of academic rigor and competence through student grades. I believe that denying a professor the right to grade as necessary (with just cause) could be a violation of academic freedom.
Why after 28 years did Wozniak decide to challenge a policy that he should have approved of in the past? This aside I think case is more about due process rather than academic freedom. He was given options to express his concerns and meet deadlines, but he contionuously dismissed this. Therefore I do not agree with him that he was denied due process.
I have to support Benet's assertion that this case is primarily about due process rather than academic freedom although both are part of the situation. I wonder what the university had been doing prior to this new grading process to ensure consistency and how that may have played into the response and subsequent actions of the professor. Regardless, I do believe that it is the institution's responsibility to ensure similar and fair grading structures for like coursework in that they issue the transcript and degree. I wonder, beyond protest, what due process the professor failed to see in that he was given ample opportunity to state his claim and failed to do so.
With regard to Nichols, I fully support the decision of the court in upholding and institution's right to create an environment that is safe and secure both physically but also emotionally for its students and staff. Academic freedom shouldn't give a professor carte blanche to do and say what ever s/he pleases but should provide a broad window through which education may occur. As the owners of that freedom, the university has the right and the responsibility to prescribe some boundaries that ensure that discourse and exploration of knowledge are embraced, but not at the expense of those we serve.
I also agree with Benet’s posting. The university appears to have given ample opportunity for due process (without knowing their specific grievance policies), but Wozniak decided to completely ignore any attempts by the university to resolve the issue. Also, I would assume that the grievance procedures would be part of the collective bargaining process (don’t know the details). I don’t have much knowledge in this area, but I would assume that meetings up the chain of command are required. This appears to be a contractual type of issue. If you teach for the university, you are required to follow certain policies and procedures set forth by the institution including submitting required documentation regarding support for grades. I can’t call payroll and tell them I worked 40 hours over the phone and expect to get a paycheck this Friday. I must follow the policies and submit a timesheet that I signed agreeing to the accuracy and certified by my supervisor.
This particular Pavela report focuses on academic freedom as it relates to both the first amendment and due process.
ReplyDelete1. In the Nichols v. University of Southern Mississippi, a faculty member made a complaint that he was unlawfully dismissed for making anti-gay comments in an instructional setting and the court rejected the complaint. What are your thoughts on the federal district court's decision? How do we balance academic freedom with institutional policies?
2. In Wozniak v. Conry: do you agree with Wozniak's reasoning for not turning in the grading materials? Do you feel academic freedom was violated in this case? What about the notion of due process - do you believe the steps were handled properly? Why or why not?
3. What are your thoughts on government intervention in the intellectual life of a university?
Yes, I think his academic freedom may have been slightly violated in this case because he must follow the universities grading policies. However, I agree with the court that the grading policy is an internal issue and not something the courts should get involved with. Overall, if this faculty member has an issue with the limited amount of academic freedom in regards to grades at this university, he could always leave and go to a university that grants more academic freedom. Every university is different and it’s up to the professor to find the right fit. In addition, I think Wozniak lost his due process right when he refused to explain himself to the Dean. That really should have been the first step for due process and would have fulfilled the “some kind of hearing” rule that courts understand.
ReplyDeleteI found the Wozniak v. Conroy case to be very interesting for several different reasons. The opening statement in the “facts of the case” states that after teaching for 28 years, Wozniak “became a rebel”. It sounds like he might have been a rebel, or at least a thorn in other people’s sides, for some time since he had not made full professor after all those years…
ReplyDeleteInitially, I was somewhat surprised by the Court’s statement that there was “no material dispute” since the professor openly chose to refuse to follow the University's established grading rules and was therefore openly insubordinate. I had felt fairly certain the Court would have refused to tell a professor how to grade, leaving this decision to the professor. In my mind, this seemed like a grading issue, and one the Courts tend to shy away from, rather than an employment issue of insubordination. However, I then thought back to cases such as Lovelace v. Southeastern Massachusetts University where the Court ruled on the side of the institution to set the standards over grading, and other cases which confirm the “university as speaker.”
It’s hard to judge specifically whether Wozniak’s rights to due process were violated since we don’t have access to the University of Illinois’ policy regarding due process; however, it certainly seems that he was offered several opportunities to plead his case through the “multiple levels of review within the University” – and certainly he gave up his right to due process by failing to meet with the Dean who gave him “one last chance to comply or explain himself.”
Simply put, I honestly think that life would be much easier if people would just follow the rules. Now, of course there are times when it is necessary to stand up for justice or argue for change if a particular policy or process does not work well. From what was presented in the Pavela Report, this 28-year veteran (Louis Wozniak) saw fit to challenge an academic system seemingly without cause. The institution seemed to be clear in its intent to provide a consistent grading scale but the professor failed to comply without explanation. When he was given the opportunity to speak for himself and take advantage of his “due process”, he chose not to do so. Therefore, I believe he relinquished his rights with regard to this issue. Although I don’t feel that his rights of academic freedom were violated, I do believe that his sanctions may have been a bit harsh. On the other hand, violation of academic freedom could have been considered if Professor Wozniak had complied with all of the institutional policies then the University questioned his grading or required him change grades. In such cases, professors often express themselves academically by communicating their expectations of academic rigor and competence through student grades. I believe that denying a professor the right to grade as necessary (with just cause) could be a violation of academic freedom.
ReplyDeleteWhy after 28 years did Wozniak decide to challenge a policy that he should have approved of in the past? This aside I think case is more about due process rather than academic freedom. He was given options to express his concerns and meet deadlines, but he contionuously dismissed this. Therefore I do not agree with him that he was denied due process.
ReplyDeleteI have to support Benet's assertion that this case is primarily about due process rather than academic freedom although both are part of the situation. I wonder what the university had been doing prior to this new grading process to ensure consistency and how that may have played into the response and subsequent actions of the professor. Regardless, I do believe that it is the institution's responsibility to ensure similar and fair grading structures for like coursework in that they issue the transcript and degree. I wonder, beyond protest, what due process the professor failed to see in that he was given ample opportunity to state his claim and failed to do so.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Nichols, I fully support the decision of the court in upholding and institution's right to create an environment that is safe and secure both physically but also emotionally for its students and staff. Academic freedom shouldn't give a professor carte blanche to do and say what ever s/he pleases but should provide a broad window through which education may occur. As the owners of that freedom, the university has the right and the responsibility to prescribe some boundaries that ensure that discourse and exploration of knowledge are embraced, but not at the expense of those we serve.
I also agree with Benet’s posting. The university appears to have given ample opportunity for due process (without knowing their specific grievance policies), but Wozniak decided to completely ignore any attempts by the university to resolve the issue. Also, I would assume that the grievance procedures would be part of the collective bargaining process (don’t know the details). I don’t have much knowledge in this area, but I would assume that meetings up the chain of command are required. This appears to be a contractual type of issue. If you teach for the university, you are required to follow certain policies and procedures set forth by the institution including submitting required documentation regarding support for grades. I can’t call payroll and tell them I worked 40 hours over the phone and expect to get a paycheck this Friday. I must follow the policies and submit a timesheet that I signed agreeing to the accuracy and certified by my supervisor.
ReplyDelete