Academic Freedom in Classroom Discussions

Abstract

Discussion is a staple in an academic classroom and remains at the apex of importance regarding student learning. It offers students an opportunity to have discourse around course material, other scholarly material, life experiences, etc. Discussion can lead to a deeper understanding of the subject matter and provide students and faculty exposure to perspectives that may challenge, validate, or reframe existing perspectives. Such discourse can also shatter existing perspectives and create opportunities for the development of new ones. The central role of faculty is to develop topics to be discussed and facilitate said discussions. Topics perceived as controversial (e.g., politics, human sexuality, religion, etc.) tend to produce the most lively and valuable discussions. Unfortunately, fears of retribution for engaging in such topics have commonly caused faculty to shy away from having such difficult dialogues. These fears persist even though the 1940 ­Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure position is to allow professors the opportunity to discuss challenging topics in the classroom (AAUP, n.d.). The current chapter addresses the challenge of protecting faculty who need the support of academic freedom in their classroom discussions. The authors approach this problem by discussing factors that leave faculty hesitant to engage in provocative classroom discussions such as the institution’s culture, faculty characteristics, rights of the faculty, and student population. Finally, the authors conclude with practical implications for how faculty hesitancy has the consequence of not promoting the critical thinking skills of students, which are required for today’s students who will become and who are already working professionals.

Citation

Allen, A., James, J.L. and James, A.G. (2021), "Academic Freedom in Classroom Discussions", Ceglie, R. and Thompson, S. (Ed.) Academic Freedom: Autonomy, Challenges and Conformation, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83909-882-620211002