Academic Freedom: Autonomy, Challenges and Conformation

During the months leading up to and immediately following President Donald Trump’s election, the unique intersection of classroom academic freedom and teacher and students’ first amendment rights would be duly tested, as headlines reminded citizens, parents, and pundits that the reach of raw emotions and political viewpoints did not stop at the schoolhouse door. School and classroom-based events would eventually test the norms of community, the interpretation of legal precedents, the resolve of district and school leadership, and the rights or limits thereof of the teachers themselves. This analysis is grounded on case studies of eight such incidents, all of which occurred at the high school level in public school districts. These eight cases are analyzed in terms of the incidents, the teacher’s actions or speech, the consequences, the relevant legal precedents surrounding academic freedom, the parental, student, and community reaction, and the short- and long-term impacts moving forward.

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.

The mission of education programs is to provide opportunities for preservice teachers (PSTs) to become comfortable working with all students they will encounter; therefore, changing the face of teacher education is important. Allowing professors a certain level of academic freedom to strategically and purposefully build curriculum designed to respond to an ever-changing educational landscape while making space for authentic experiences is invaluable. If we are wanting our future teachers to lead successful diverse classrooms, opportunities must be developed and provided even if this means thinking outside of the box and in our experience outside of the university. When developing future teachers, this cannot be taken lightly. Experiences must be developed to help prepare future teachers who will be challenged by parents and communities on the content decisions they may make in their own classrooms. If we model flexibility and independent decision-making skills, then our PSTs will learn these dispositions. In addition, allowing them to take the authority in developing and implementing professional development experiences such as the experience in Hato Mayor will be valuable in developing their knowledge of leading in the classroom, school, and teaching profession.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the relationship between foreign-born faculty and academic freedom. Upon identification of the focal population, a literature review of the multifaceted challenges that foreign-born faculty face in academy is offered. It is followed by an analysis of the ways in which faculty respond to these challenges and an investigation of scholars’ proposals for institutions of higher education that aim to provide inclusive spaces. This chapter concludes with a discussion of ways in which institutional initiatives can assist foreign-born faculty and promote spaces for their exercise of academic freedom.

Online learning is becoming increasingly popular in the K-12 school systems for various reasons. This learning platform can provide education to students from various corners of our nation through the use of the Internet and, more importantly, can be accessed through the use of various technologies. As the needs of our schools continue to change and the implementation of online learning continues to develop due to necessity or as an alternate method of educating K-12 students, the awareness of academic freedom that can become challenged or blurred needs special attention. This chapter encourages school systems, administrators, instructors, and online participants to grow more aware of the potential downfalls in this type of learning environment which could likely infringe upon the academic freedom of all participants (both the instructor and students) in online learning environments. This chapter focuses on three topics: the structure of online courses that can impede academic freedom, the impact of language and expression on academic freedom in the online environment, and how the use of technology in online classrooms could potentially encumber the academic freedom of participants. Further, this chapter discusses the importance of being cognizant of the possible academic freedom that can become infringed upon when developing and teaching online courses and ways to avoid these potential problems in the K-12 online classroom.

This chapter focuses on a university case that interprets the variability of academic freedom in terms of faculty’s textbook selection and the need for students’ textbook affordability. Faculty members are participants in a collective bargaining unit and students are members of the student government organization in a state university system. The faculty contract outlines tenets of academic freedom that delineate faculty selection of curriculum (textbooks), instruction, and assessment practices. This chapter highlights the nuances of faculty rights in the name of academic freedom and the students’ need for more affordable textbooks which includes open educational resource materials. In this case, the administration, faculty association, and the student government worked together to create a set of conditions for a more affordable textbook selection. This collaborative process is explored and explained as a set of practices that other colleges and universities can replicate at their institutions.

Academic freedom impacts researchers, teaching, and research practices, as limits and prohibitions can be dictated from governing bodies and funding agencies. The science discipline is particularly impacted as several areas of science have faced scrutiny which impacts learning opportunities for undergraduate students as well as potential research areas which may be prohibited by university professors or graduate students. This chapter explores the impact on the science disciplines as increasingly restricted regulations and political pressures have limited academic freedom. Several specific examples are examined which shed light on the current and future impact that these limitations have on advancements of science literacy and scientific research.

Academic freedom is seen as the freedom of teachers, students, and academic institutions to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead, without undue or unreasonable interference (Nelson, 2010). This chapter looks at this concept of academic freedom and argues that the centralized system of education in Cameroon constitutes an abating factor for academic freedom. That is, emphasis is placed on the health of academic freedom noting that colonialism, politics, religion, undemocratic and corrupt government, as well as the control of social media and civil liberties play a significant part in stifling academic freedom. Information is drawn from the literature in the field, recent research, and current events in the country. This chapter describes the challenges and variables at work that have led to the decline of academic freedom in the country, revealing the fact that educators who carry out research, teach or communicate ideas or facts that are inconvenient to the parents, faith organizations, and the ruling political party find themselves likely to be fired from their jobs, targeted for public defamation, and even detained in maximum security jails. It further points out that academic freedom is important to the development of a country and a country which does not allow freedom risks promoting bad, irrational, and toxic ideas (Sayer, 2017). Since the right to academic freedom is under attack, there is a danger of stifling original, beneficial, and innovative ideas from researchers, and Cameroon misses out on the benefits of the academic freedom.

Academic freedom is an area of interest for many academic faculty and students who are typically protected from persecution or retribution from what they say within the context of the university. There is significant history of this freedom, and this protection has been challenged and as colleges and universities have focused attention on diversity and inclusion efforts, some have considered if this hinders academic freedom. The growing criticism of what is referred to as speech codes (limits on free speech) has created discussion in the academic community as to what extent, if at all, these limits negatively impact the spirit of free speech. Several of John Dewey’s works provide guidance on this topic, and in this chapter, the authors examine its relevance to academic freedom.

The offshore boom in campus branches has produced enough evidence to make an initial assessment of how well academic freedoms are being observed in the illiberal locations – East Asia and the Gulf states – that are now hosting Anglophone universities. Reviewing the history of American Association of University Professors (AAUP) policy making on the topic, and the circumstances under which a “gold rush” developed, this chapter analyzes the crackdown on speech in China and focuses on the case study of New York University Abu Dhabi, where a vigorous debate about freedoms and labor standards was followed by a series of conflicts with state authorities, resulting in violations of AAUP principles. Though it may be too early to offer conclusive arguments, the record of the liberal arts in illiberal places so far suggests that Herbert Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance” may be cropping up in new versions.

This chapter explores and addresses the current status of the professorship in higher education. The authors explore how the prestige of the professorship has dwindled and as a result has changed the overall trajectory of the professor as an active and ongoing integral part that is the essential essence of the academy. This chapter picks up from the research article initially published by Mutisya and Osler in 2014 as well as the work published by the same two authors in 2013. The 2013 article involved an in-depth analysis on the professorate from a diverse number of currently employed professors. The research ultimately addressed the need for a “Conceptual Framework for Faculty as Academic Leaders in the Academy.” This chapter extends the initial research into an active discourse on current problems facing the professorate and solutions that can be enacted to reclaim the lost prestige and authority that the position of professor once had in higher education.

This chapter connects Black women’s histories of educational leadership after emancipation to the need for creative leadership in academia now. This chapter focuses on ways in which nineteenth-century educator and activists Lucy Craft Laney and Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, among others, addressed challenges of race and gender and how their stories offer opportunities to consider current needs in higher education. Contrary to the freedom that academia is supposed to promote, topics in gender and ethnic studies may be challenged or restricted as part of liberal political agendas. Additionally, this chapter considers ways in which academia has been used to limit freedom for students and the need for innovative and creative ways to promote academic freedom in educational settings.

The First Amendment so states,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (United Nations, 2006)

Within the confines of this law are the foundational touchstones of our democracy identifying the protection of five critical freedoms of religion, press, speech, assembly and the freedom to petition to the government. Many institutions of higher education and spheres of academe outline academic freedom as the right of a scholar to express ideas without risk of potential professional consequence. Within that domain of the freedom to express and share information, the American Library Association defines intellectual freedom as,

the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.

In a time where democratic freedoms are being challenged, the concepts of intellectual freedom and academic freedom require examination as key tenets of our democracy to be upheld, celebrated and honored. This chapter will critique and consider how institutions, organizations and entities have a keen ability to be empowered and disempowered by the appropriate execution or the lack of execution of both the tenets of intellectual and academic freedoms. This chapter will deconstruct both concepts through the lens of a social justice framework, thereby posing the question how challenging key democratic elements of the citizenry to express and share ideas, inform and responsibly disseminate ideas handicaps both the will and core of a democracy to thrive. This chapter will highlight how communities expand and narrow the domains of intellectual and academic freedom, from within the United States exploring the role of the Constitution, yet also infusing a global perspective. This chapter will examine what both academic and intellectual freedoms look like outside of the United States, and how theoretically and tangibly the concepts are applied. This chapter explores the application of the core tenets of intellectual and academic freedoms through a social justice framework and the introduction of reframing the consideration of both freedoms as human rights. A social justice framework incorporates the principle of fair and impartial treatment being afforded and entitled to all members of the citizenry. Seemingly to oppose and prevent these modes of expression and foundational elements of freedom both obstruct the principles of social justice and disrupt a democracy.