admin

The American Historical Association Endorses the ABOR–in Theory

May 23, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

By Sara Dogan–FrontPageMagazine.com–03/28/05

Since its inception, the Academic Bill of Rights has endured frequent criticism from members of the academy, who claim that its tenets will infringe on professors’ right to free expression in the classroom. These opponents most often cite the Bill’s statement that faculty have an obligation to make students aware of the “spectrum of significant scholarly views” on the subjects they teach and the prohibition on using the classroom “for purposes of political, ideological, religious, or anti-religious indoctrination.”

We have repeatedly pointed out that the precepts of our Bill are taken directly from official pronouncements on academic freedom made by the American Association of University Professors. As the principal opponent of the Academic Bill of Rights, the AAUP has refused to acknowledge this debt and implausibly maintains that measure we are supporting to reinforce the academic freedom code is itself “a grave threat to academic freedom.”

The fact that it is the AAUP that has stood these issues on their head is confirmed by the Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct of the American Historical Association, which explicitly confirms the key tenets of our Academic Bill of Rights.

The newly revised Statement, which was formally adopted by Council on January 6, 2005, acknowledges both the right of academics to hold personal beliefs on their topics of study and the importance of presenting and considering multiple historical perspectives, noting that “practicing history with integrity does not mean being neutral or having no point of view” but also: “Multiple, conflicting perspectives are among the truths of history. No single objective or universal account could ever put an end to this endless creative dialogue within and between the past and the present.”

Similarly, the Academic Bill of Rights holds that “Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.”

In describing how to handle these scholarly differences, the AHA again and again reinforces the importance of civility and respect, noting in one passage that “[Historians] believe in vigorous debate, but they also believe in civility” and in another paragraph, “they should respect and welcome divergent points of view even as they argue and subject those views to critical scrutiny.”

The AHA also offers explicit guidance on teaching, and it is here that the resemblance to the Academic Bill of Rights is most apparent.

The Statement notes, “Integrity and teaching means presenting competing interpretations with fairness and intellectual honesty….The political social and religious beliefs of history teachers necessarily inform their work, but the right of the teacher to hold and express such convictions can never justify falsification, misrepresentation, or concealment, or the persistent intrusion of material unrelated to the subject of the course” (emphasis added).

The italicized phrase is critical, because it is identical to a phrase in the Academic Bill of Rights which has been singled out by the AAUP and other opponents as an unwarranted “restriction” on professors’ free speech. Far from being unwarranted it is a phrase lifted from the AAUP’s own academic freedom guidelines.

The AHA statement continues: “Furthermore, teachers should be mindful that students and other audience members have the right to disagree with a given interpretation or point of view. Students should be made aware of multiple causes and varying interpretations. Within the bounds of the historical topic being studied, the free expression of legitimate differences of opinion should always be a goal. Teachers should judge students’ work on merit alone” (emphasis added).

To emphasize the importance of introducing diverse perspectives, the next paragraph reiterates the point: “Course offerings, textbooks, and public history presentations should address the diversity of human experience, recognizing that historical accuracy requires attention both to individual and cultural similarities and differences and to the larger global and historical context within which societies have evolved.”

These statements duplicate the core points of the Academic Bill of Rights, including the prohibition on using the classroom for purposes of indoctrination or propaganda (“the persistent intrusion of material unrelated to the subject of the course”) and the importance of presenting a spectrum of scholarly views (“students should be made aware of multiple causes and varying interpretations”). Yet when these points are made by supporters of the Academic Bill of Rights, the AAUP calls them a “grave threat to academic freedom.”

An additional point of agreement between the AHA’s Statement and the Academic Bill of Rights is apparent in the Statement’s discussion of employment practices which holds that “Employment decisions always involve judgments. But, except in those cases in which federal law allows a specific preference, institutions should base hiring decisions as well as all decisions relating to reappointment, promotion, tenure, apprenticeship, graduate student assistantships, awards, and fellowships solely on professional qualifications without regard to sex, race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, veteran status, age, certain physical handicaps, or marital status.”

It is notable that this non-discrimination clause refers directly to “political affiliation” as a protected category, since many universities currently do not have official policies prohibiting discrimination in hiring or tenure practices based on political or ideological beliefs. It is also interesting that professors who claim to be appalled at legislation to enforce the Academic Bill of Rights are perfectly willing (as this passage shows) to accept government intrusion in the hiring process if the issue is skin color or gender or sexual orientation.

In sum, the American Historical Association’s guidelines on professional conduct specifically endorse the key tenets of the Academic Bill of Rights, including the prohibition on persistently introducing irrelevant controversial topics in the classroom and the responsibility of faculty to expose students to a spectrum of scholarly views. Scholars and members of the AHA should welcome the Academic Bill of Rights as an attempt to see that its own statement of policy is actually put into practice.
——————————————————————————–
Sara Dogan is National Campus Director of Students for Academic Freedom.

University of Cincinnati: Evaluation of Academic Freedom Policies

May 23, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

By Sara Dogan–03/10/05

One of the key stories to come out of last Tuesday’s Senate hearings on Ohio Senate Bill 24 was that of a student of the University of Cincinnati whose philosophy professor blatantly violated his academic freedoms. As David Horowitz related to the assembled panel, the student’s professor told the class that they should “vote the f*#@ing Republicans out of office this November.” This professor also called President Bush a “douche-bag” on a regular basis and harassed the student because he disagreed with the professor’s political views.

Columnist Mike Harden wrote a column for the Columbus Dispatch in which he quotes several University of Cincinnati administrators who were upset that the student who Horowitz mentioned in his testimony did not file an official grievance with the University.

Harden claims that the charge “blindsided” UC Vice-President for Government Regulations Gregory Vehr who is quoted as saying “it’s the first we heard of it, and we do have a grievance procedure.”

Vice Provost for Academic Personnel Karen Faaborg added that “There has been no complaint in the departmental office, in the dean’s office or in my office.”

It is true that the student whose experience David Horowitz cited in his testimony has not yet filed a complaint with the University. But an examination of the University of Cincinnati’s student policies reveals that he likely was not aware that his professor’s abusive conduct was forbidden by official university policy or that it was possible to file a grievance based on his classroom experience.

In an attempt to clarify UC’s grievance procedure, I spoke with University Ombudsman Lillian Santa-Maria who directed me to UC’s Undergraduate Student Grievance Policies and Procedures (part of a packet entited “Students Right to Know” which is prominently displayed in the student section of UC’s website).

“If a student feels that he is being treated improperly and being discriminated on the basis of his political beliefs by a professor, evaluated with bias, those things are covered under the undergraduate student grievance procedure,” Santa-Maria stated. She referred me to section 2 under the heading “Applicability” which states that grievance procedures are applicable in cases where “a student believes he/she has been subjected to other improper treatment,” and maintained that complaints regarding partisan diatribes or abuse in the classroom were covered under this stanza.

Santa-Maria is correct that it is technically possible for a student to file a grievance due to a professor’s partisan abuse; but the key question is whether students are aware of this option and whether they know that such conduct is a violation of the university rules.

The University of Cincinnati in fact has a very strict standard regarding the introduction of controversial political topics in the classroom. The Rules of the University, Section 50-7-01-D states that “Instructional personnel shall enjoy academic freedom, but, this does not mean license free from all responsibility; nor the use of class time to present propaganda on controversial issues; nor the use of class time to discuss matter that are not germane to the specialty which they have been appointed to teach; nor in class seek to elicit and/or attack the views of any student on a subject not germane to the officially announced subject matter of the course.” [reference: http://www.uc.edu/trustees/rules/RuleDetail.asp?ID=211]

This policy explicitly condemns the behavior of the professor in question, yet there is little likelihood that the student who was abused has ever seen it. It is hidden away in the “Academic” section of the extremely lengthy “Rules of the University” where students are unlikely to come across it.

It is also notable that this policy is framed exclusively in terms of the professorial responsibility to keep politics out of the classroom, rather than in terms of students’ rights to an education free from political indoctrination or harassment. The Rules of the University do contain a section devoted to the rights and responsibilities of students, but the statements on students’ academic freedoms here are vague. Section 40-5-01-A states that “institutional authority shall not be employed to inhibit such intellectual and personal development of students as is promoted by exercise of their rights and responsibilities both on and off campus” and section 40-5-03-1a states that the university environment “should encourage and protect free intellectual inquiry, including the examination of unorthodox or controversial ideas.” These vague statements are all that the section dedicated to students’ rights offers on the issue of students’ academic freedoms.

Notably, the students section of the Rules of the University also references the 1967 “Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students” which was endorsed by the American Association of University professors and other organizations and states that the University “hereby adopts [the statement] in principle” as “a guide to the interpretation and implementation of the rights and responsibilities set forth in this chapter.” This statement affirms the inseparability of “the freedom to teach and the freedom to learn” and holds that “Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion.” Despite this reference to academic freedom, the 1967 statement’s precepts don’t serve to clarify anything for students since the statement is merely mentioned by name, and not quoted, and no link is provided to the text.

In sum, the University of Cincinnati has a fairly comprehensive policy forbidding professors from using the classroom for purposes of political indoctrination. Yet because this policy is framed exclusively in terms of professorial responsibility and is contained wholly within a section of the Rules of the University that students are unlikely to read, it has little benefit or relevance for the unfortunate UC student who was told by his professor that he should “vote the f*#@ing republicans out of office this November.” And while the student grievance procedure guidelines may technically cover such abuses (and the student in question is now considering filing a formal complaint), the lack of a specific policy addressing political harassment or indoctrination in the classroom makes it highly questionable whether any student would bring such a case to the attention of the university, especially given that the grievance policies explicitly mention filing complaints on the grounds of harassment due to sex, race, religion, sexual-orientation and national origin, among other categories, yet exclude political views from this list.

Nowhere in this policy or others is any explicit mention made of how a student can file an official complaint against a faculty member for violation of the University of Cincinnati’s academic freedom policy as espoused in the Rules of the University.

Senate Bill 24 addresses this lack directly, stating that “The board of trustees…shall adopt a grievance procedure by which a student, faculty member, or other instructor may seek redress for an alleged violation of any of the rights specified by that institution’s policy” and “shall provide students, faculty, and instructors with notice of the rights and grievance procedure by publication in the institution’s course catalog, student handbook, and web site.”

If the administrators of the University of Cincinnati are truly committed to protecting the academic freedoms of both students and faculty, they should gladly endorse Senate Bill 24 as an organic extension of their existing policies.

Commentary on the Academic Freedom Regulations at OSU and Senate Bill 24

May 23, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

By Sara Dogan, National Campus Director, Students for Academic Freedom

The Code of Student Conduct at Ohio State University states that it “is established to foster and protect the core missions of the university….The core missions of the university are research, teaching and learning, and service. Preservation of academic freedom and free and open exchange of ideas and opinions for all members of the university are central to these missions.”

Despite this promising start, the Student Code of Conduct is chiefly concerned with student disciplinary violations and procedures. In fact, this introduction is the only place the term “academic freedom” appears in this lengthy document. Nowhere does this document address a student’s right to fair and non-partisan instruction, respect from faculty members, or right to file grievances due to partisan teaching or abuse in the classroom.

Nor is this information contained anywhere within the handy “Student Resource Guide” on OSU’s website (the guide does contain a link to OSU’s “Nondiscrimination, sexual harassment and other personnel policies” but these policies do not mention political beliefs or identify classroom indoctrination as a possible violation of this policy).

Ohio State University’s existing Academic Freedom regulations in regard to professors, on the other hand, do resemble some of the points of Senate Bill 24, but they have no enforcement mechanisms and as a result have not been enforced.
These Academic Freedom regulations are hidden away in the “Rules of the University Faculty” where students are highly unlikely to come across them.

The section on “Academic Freedom and Responsibility” (section 3335-5-01) “endorses full academic freedom as essential to attain the goal of the free search for truth and its free exposition.” It goes on to state: “Academic freedom and academic responsibility are the twin guardians of the integrity of institutions of higher learning.” Unfortunately, it is the “academic responsibility” half of these regulations that are sorely neglected at Ohio State University and that make Senate Bill 24 necessary.

In principle, the Ohio State University policy follows closely the guidelines set forth by the American Association of University Professors in 1940 that are opposed by the present AAUP leadership. It states that teachers have the freedom to “discuss in classrooms, in their own manner, any material that is relevant to the subject matter as defined in the course syllabus” but cautions that they also have the responsibility to “refrain from persistently introducing matters that have no bearing on the subject matter of the course.”
Other “correlative academic responsibilities” listed by the policy include the responsibility to “Work with appropriate individuals and bodies to provide optimal conditions conducive to the attainment of the free search for truth and its free exposition” and to “differentiate carefully between official activities as teachers and personal activities as citizens, and to act accordingly.”

In sum, Ohio State’s academic freedom policies as contained within the faculty code echo many of the key principles of Ohio Senate Bill 24 and the Academic Bill of Rights on which it is based. They warn professors against letting politics or their “personal activities as citizens” influence their teaching and caution them not to bring introduce irrelevant and controversial topics into the classroom. While these policies do not explicitly mention instructors’ obligation to provide students “access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study” they do mention the obligation to “meet their defined teaching, research and service obligations” and “encourage students and colleagues to engage in free discussion and inquiry.” They also mention the duty to “evaluate student and colleague performance on a scholarly basis” the corollary to which is clearly a prohibition on grading students based on their political, religious or intellectual beliefs.

Ohio State’s policies are generally commendable for their attention to the key areas of academic freedom, yet it is an egregious oversight that these policies are published only in the faculty handbook and are not made publicly available to students. Furthermore, despite the good intentions of these policies, it is not clear how the university enforces them, if at all. Neither the student nor faculty handbooks make any mention of how a student can file an official complaint against a faculty member for violation of Ohio State’s academic freedom policy.

If Ohio State’s administrators are truly committed to protecting the academic freedoms of both students and faculty, they should gladly endorse Senate Bill 24 as an organic extension of their existing policies.

RULES OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY
FACULTY, GOVERNANCE, AND COMMITTEES

Chapter 3335-5
General Matters 3335-5-01 Academic freedom and responsibility.

(B) The principal elements of academic freedom include the freedom of teachers to:

(1) Teach, conduct research, and publish research findings;

(2) Discuss in classrooms, in their own manner, any material that is relevant to the subject matter as defined in the course syllabus;

(3) Exercise their constitutional rights as citizens without institutional censorship or discipline;

(4) Seek changes in academic and institutional policies through lawful and peaceful means.

(C) Academic freedom carries with it correlative academic responsibilities. The principal elements include the responsibility of teachers to:

(1) Meet their defined teaching, research, and service obligations;

(2) Pursue excellence, intellectual honesty, and objectivity in teaching, in conducting research, and in publishing research findings;

(3) Encourage students and colleagues to engage in free discussion and inquiry;

(4) Evaluate student and colleague performance on a scholarly basis;

(5) Refrain from persistently introducing matters that have no bearing on the subject matter of the course;

(6) Work with appropriate individuals and bodies to provide optimal conditions conducive to the attainment of the free search for truth and its free exposition;

(7) Differentiate carefully between official activities as teachers and personal activities as citizens, and to act accordingly. (B/T 9/14/65, B/T 5/2/75, B/T 3/1/85)

Florida Academic Freedom Policies Evaluation

May 23, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

The Academic Bill of Rights (House Bill 837) introduced by Representative Baxley in Florida has garnered significant criticism from academics and others who allege that it would curtail the free speech rights of faculty members and claim that its call for professors to introduce students to “a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study” would force the teaching of discredited or unscientific doctrines such as Holocaust-denial or creationism.

An editorial in the St. Petersburg Times quoted the AAUP’s claim that the bill invites “diversity to be measured by political standards that diverge from the academic criteria of the scholarly profession” and an article in the Herald Tribune noted that “academics” fear that its “true intent is to hinder any discourse out of the mainstream.”

These charges are absurd. The philosophy of academic freedom expressed in the Academic Bill of Rights was drawn from official statements of the American Association of University Professors which have been consistent over the past century in their cautionary warnings to faculty not to take “unfair advantage of the student’s immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher’s own opinions before the student has had an opportunity to fairly examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own” In a 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the AAUP reinforces this position, noting, “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.” Additional excerpts from the AAUP statements on Academic Freedom may be found on our website at www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org .

Lest these AAUP statements are not sufficient to convince our critics, Students for Academic Freedom has conducted research into the academic freedom policies of four major Florida universities and has found that all three possess policies which mirror the language and intent of the Florida Academic Bill of Rights, most particularly the statement of the need to introduce students to diverse opinions and perspectives in the classroom which has been so widely criticized. Excerpts from these policies are below.
While we applaud the intent of these policies, the fact remains that they are seldom enforced and are not publicized in places where students are likely to come across them such as student handbooks or course catalogues.
House Bill 837 would remedy this situation mandating that, “Students, faculty, and instructors have a right to be fully informed of their rights and their institution’s grievance procedures for violations of academic freedom by means of notices prominently displayed in course catalogs and student handbooks and on the institutional website.”

University of Florida:

The Rules of the Department of Education for the University of Florida state that:
” Consistent with the exercise of academic responsibility, a teacher must have freedom in the classroom in discussing academic subjects, selecting instructional materials and determining grades. The University student must likewise have the opportunity to study a full spectrum of ideas, opinions, and beliefs, so that the student may acquire maturity for analysis and judgment. Objective and skillful exposition of such matters is the duty of every instructor” (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.generalcounsel.ufl.edu/Rules/Chapter%207/7018.pdf

University of North Florida:

The UNF Faculty Handbook, Chapter 10.1 states:
” The University of North Florida strongly supports the principles of academic freedom and responsibility as adopted by and promulgated by the State University System….Consistent with the exercise of academic responsibility, employees shall have freedom to present and discuss their own academic subjects, frankly and forthrightly, without fear of censorship, and to select instructional materials and determine grades in accordance with University and Board policies. Objective and skillful exposition of such subject matter, including the acknowledgment of a variety of scholarly opinions, is the duty of every such employee” (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.unf.edu/acadaffairs/handbook/ch10.pdf

Florida State University:

The FSU Faculty Handbook, Chapter 7.53 on Academic Freedom and Responsibility states that:

“In the development of knowledge, research endeavors, and creative activities, a university faculty must be free to cultivate a spirit of inquiry and scholarly criticism and to examine ideas in an atmosphere of freedom and confidence. A similar atmosphere is required for university teaching. Consistent with the exercise of academic responsibility, an instructor must have freedom in the classroom to discuss academic subjects. The university student must likewise have the opportunity to study a full spectrum of ideas, opinions, and beliefs, so that the student may acquire maturity for analysis and judgment. Objective and skillful exposition of such subject matter is the duty of every instructor” (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.fsu.edu/~dof/Faculty-Handbook/Ch7/Ch7.53.html

Florida Atlantic University:

The FAU Faculty Handbook advises instructors:

It is the policy of the University to maintain and encourage full academic freedom….Consistent with the exercise of academic responsibility, employees shall have freedom to present and discuss their own academic subjects, frankly and forthrightly, without fear of censorship, and to select instructional materials and determine grades in accordance with university policies. Objective and skillful exposition of such subject matter, including the acknowledgment of a variety of scholarly opinions, is the duty of every such employee” (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.fau.edu/academic/provost/facbook.pdf (pages 12-13)

facbook Download

Ohio Summary of Current Academic Freedom Policies

May 23, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

By Sara Dogan–SAF–04/27/05

University of Akron:

The Rules of the University section 3359-20-03-B on “The faculty: general personnel” policies, state that: The university of Akron subscribes to the following statements from the “academic freedom and tenure” document as presented in the quarterly “academe” publication of the American association of university professors:

(2) Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.uakron.edu/ogc/rules/Rules20/20-03f.pdf

20-03f Download

An additional policy (Rules of the University 3359-42-01) addressing “student rights and responsibilities” states that:

Freedom to teach and freedom to learn are inseparable facets of academic freedom. These freedoms depend upon appropriate opportunities and conditions in the classroom, on the campus and in the larger community. All members of the university community share the right and responsibility to secure and to respect general conditions conducive to enjoyment of these freedoms which are inalienable….At the university of Akronstudents have both the right and the responsibility to engage in free inquiry and expression when relevant to the subject under discussion. Students are responsible for learning the content of any course of study for which they are enrolled and they shall comport themselves in a mature responsible manner and shall be held responsible for maintaining established standards of academic performance….Students have the right to expect effective instruction and to have their performance evaluated solely on an academic basis. Students should be informed by each instructor at the beginning of each course of the procedures and standards, including class attendance requirements, etc., by which they will be graded. Any student who believes unfair treatment has been received in the classroom has the right to seek and receive from the instructor the reason for the instructor’s action. If the student still questions the fairness of the instructor’s action, the student has the right to appeal in turn to the head of the department or division, the dean of the college in which the course is given, and the senior vice president and provost (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.uakron.edu/ogc/rules/Rules40/42-01f.doc

42-01f Download

Analysis: The policies of the University of Akron do accord with Senate Bill 24 in stating that professors should not introduce into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course. While the University policies on academic freedom do not explicitly call for professors to present a diverse range of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects they teach, they do state that the freedoms to teach and learn “depend upon appropriate opportunities and conditions in the classroom, on the campus and in the larger community” and that students “have the right to expect effective instruction.”

It is commendable that the Akron policies explicitly allow students to file grievances when they question “the fairness of the instructor’s action” but we would recommend that the faculty policy forbidding the introduction of irrelevant controversial material in the classroom be formulated as a student right and would further recommend that the student grievance policy be amended to explicitly state that students have the right to file a grievance when their professors persistently introduce controversial material in the classroom that is irrelevant to the subject of the course or otherwise violate students’ academic freedom. Additionally, we suggest that the university make explicit the need for faculty to present a spectrum of “significant scholarly viewpoints” on the subjects they teach.

Bowling Green State University:

The BGSU Academic Charter, Division II: Faculty Handbook, Section B-II.F: Ethical Responsibilities, states that:

The faculty of BGSU reaffirms that the following are an accepted part of their responsibilities as teacher-scholars:

(1) The responsibility to assure the student’s freedom to learn, through maintaining an atmosphere conducive to free inquiry, the respect of the student as an individual, and the evaluation of students based on professionally judged academic performance without regard to personal or political matters irrelevant to that performance.

(2) The responsibility to exercise intellectual honesty, through the development and improvement of one’s scholarly competence, the exercise of critical self discipline and judgment, and the avoidance of subsidiary interests that compromise or hamper freedom of inquiry.

(3) The responsibility to state clearly the objectives of the courses taught, to direct the instruction toward the fulfillment of these objectives, andto avoid the persistent intrusion of material irrelevant to the established course definition or apart from the faculty member’s area of scholarly competence. (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.bgsu.edu/downloads/bgsu/file918.pdf

Analysis: The policies of Bowling Green State University accord with Senate Bill 24 in stating that professors should avoid persistently introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course. While the University policies on academic freedom do not explicitly call for professors to present a diverse range of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects they teach, they do state that professors have a responsibility “to assure the student’s freedom to learn, through maintaining an atmosphere conducive to free inquiry” and “the respect of the student as an individual.”

We would recommend that the faculty policy forbidding the persistent introduction of irrelevant controversial material in the classroom be formulated as a student right and would further recommend that the student grievance policy be amended to explicitly state that students have the right to file a grievance when their professors persistently introduce controversial material in the classroom that is irrelevant to the subject of the course or otherwise violate students’ academic freedom. Additionally, we suggest that the university make explicit the need for faculty to present a spectrum of “significant scholarly viewpoints” on the subjects they teach.

Cleveland State University:

The faculty contract between Cleveland State University and the American Association of University Professors CSU Chapter, valid through August 15, 2006, states that:

10.2 Faculty are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.

11.1 Both parties endorse the AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. However, when there is a conflict between the contract and the AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the contract language shall prevail.

11.2 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS. Membership in the academic community imposes on faculty, administrators, trustees and students an obligation to respect the dignity of others, to acknowledge their right to express differing opinions, and to foster and defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and instruction, and free expression on and off the campus.

A. The primary responsibility of the faculty is to their subject and to seeking and stating the truth. To this end, faculty shall devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They shall accept the obligations to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending and transmitting knowledge. They shall practice intellectual honesty and never allow subsidiary interests they may follow to hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry…..B. As teachers, faculty shall encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Faculty shall demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.csuohio.edu/aaup/contract/2004contract/article10.htm

http://www.csuohio.edu/aaup/contract/2004contract/article11.htm

Analysis: The faculty contract at Cleveland State University accords with Senate Bill 24 in stating that professors should avoid introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course. While the University policies on academic freedom do not explicitly call for professors to present a diverse range of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects they teach, they do state that professors have “an obligation to respect the dignity of others, to acknowledge their right to express differing opinions, and to foster and defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and instruction, and free expression on and off the campus.”

University of Cincinnati:

The Rules of the University, Section 50-7-01-D states that:

Instructional personnel shall enjoy academic freedom, but, this does not mean license free from all responsibility; nor the use of class time to present propaganda on controversial issues; nor the use of class time to discuss matter that are not germane to the specialty which they have been appointed to teach; nor in class seek to elicit and/or attack the views of any student on a subject not germane to the officially announced subject matter of the course.

Reference: http://www.uc.edu/trustees/rules/RuleDetail.asp?ID=211

Analysis: The University of Cincinnati policy accords with Senate Bill 24 in stating that professors should avoid introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course, and in fact goes further in calling for professors to avoid attacking the views “of any student on a subject not germane to the officially announced subject matter of the course.” While the University policies on academic freedom do not explicitly call for professors to present a diverse range of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects they teach, they do state that professors “should encourage and protect free intellectual inquiry, including the examination of unorthodox or controversial ideas.”

Kent State University:

In the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Kent State University and the American Association of University Professors, Kent State Chapter, Article IV on Academic Freedom and Professional Responsibility states:

Section 1. The parties recognize that membership in the academic profession carries with it both special rights and also special responsibilities. Accordingly, the parties reaffirm their mutual commitment to the concepts of academic freedom and professional responsibility.

Section 2. As stated in the American Association of University Professors’ 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, Faculty members are entitled to freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties. The principles of academic freedom and freedom of inquiry shall be interpreted to include freedom of expression in both traditional print and newly-emerging electronic formats such as the creation of digital images, web sites, or home pages.

Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom (including the virtual classroom) in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. In making public statements — including the exercise of the right to responsible dissent on matters of institutional policy or educational philosophy — members of the Faculty have an obligation to be accurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, to show respect for the opinions of others and to make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the University.

Section 3. As stated in the American Association of University Professors’ 1966 Statement on Professional Ethics, Faculty members, in exercising their professional roles as teacher, scholar and colleague, accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending and transmitting knowledge and to practice intellectual honesty in accord with the standards of expectation of their respective disciplines and of the University’s Faculty Code of Professional Ethics (emphasis added).

Reference: http://dept.kent.edu/aaup/cba2001/article4.htm

Analysis: The academic freedom policy of Kent State University as stated in the collective bargaining agreement accords with Senate Bill 24 in stating that professors should avoid introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course. This policy does not however address the need for faculty to present a diverse range of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects they teach.

We would recommend that the faculty policy forbidding the introduction of irrelevant controversial material in the classroom be formulated as a student right and would further recommend that the student grievance policy be amended to explicitly state that students have the right to file a grievance when their professors persistently introduce controversial material in the classroom that is irrelevant to the subject of the course or otherwise violate students’ academic freedom. Additionally, we suggest that the university make explicit the need for faculty to present a spectrum of “significant scholarly viewpoints” on the subjects they teach.

Miami University:

Section 5 of the Miami University Policy and Information Manual on the “Rigts and Responsibilities of the Instructional Staff” states:

5.1 Principles of Academic Freedom

The following statement of principles of academic freedom adopted by the American Association of University Professors in 1940 was approved by the Board of Trustees, June of 1950:

Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition. (The word “teacher” as used in this document is understood to include the investigator who is attached to an academic institution without teaching duties.)

Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights….

5.2 Faculty Responsibilities

The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the performance of his or her other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

The teacher is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his or her subject, but should be careful not to introduce into his or her teaching controversial matter that has no relation to the subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of appointment….

5.3 Professional Ethics and Responsibilities

The University Senate, on February 13, 1969, adopted the “Statement on Professional Ethics” of the American Association of University Professors.

The professor, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognizes the special responsibilities placed upon them. The professor’s primary responsibility to his or her subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end they will devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. The faculty member accepts the obligation to exercise critical self‑discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although he or she may follow subsidiary interests, these interests may never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.

As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in students. Teachers exemplify the best scholarly standards of their disciplines. They demonstrate respect for students as individuals, and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to assure that their evaluations of students reflect students’ true merit. Faculty members respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation of students for their private advantage and acknowledge significant assistance from them. Professors protect their academic freedom….

5.4 Statement of Good Teaching Practices

Every instructor is responsible for…

4. informing students of the generally accepted conclusion on the subject matter of the course when those conclusions differ from the conclusions of the instructor;

7. being fair and impartial in evaluating all student performances, i.e., evaluating all students according to common criteria;

10. treating students with courtesy and respect at all times. Courtesy and respect do not prohibit strong criticism directed at the student’s academic errors and scholarly responsibilities;

11. endeavoring to ensure that the learning environment is free from all forms of prejudice that negatively influence student learning, such as those based on age, ethnicity, gender, mental or physical impairment, race, religion, or sexual orientation;

5.5 Student Complaints about the Quality of Instruction

Under ordinary circumstances, a student approaching an administrator to complain about a member of the instructional staff will be encouraged first of all to confer with the faculty member and seek a resolution. When a student is unable to resolve a difficulty with an instructor to the student’s satisfaction, there are two acceptable ways in which the student may lodge a complaint against a member of the instructional staff before an administrator or any person who has administrative duties. The student may file a formal grievance or the student may submit a letter of complaint to the administrator. Anonymous or unsigned statements must be disregarded and destroyed. Formal letters of complaint are to be filed in the departmental student complaint file.

Upon receipt and before acting upon a letter of complaint, the staff member shall be informed of the complaint and given timely opportunity to rebut the accusations or explain the circumstances as viewed by the staff member. If submitted, documents presenting the staff member’s position also are to be placed in the departmental student complaint file.

The student who files a complaint is entitled to know how the complaint was processed and what actions were taken in response to it (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.units.muohio.edu/secretary/mupim/

http://www.units.muohio.edu/secretary/mupim/MUPIM_word/08_Section%205,%20RR%20Inst%20Staff.doc

Analysis: The policies of Miami University do accord with Senate Bill 24 in stating that professors should not introduce into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course. The policies also explicitly lay out several faculty responsibilities that instructors should follow including the responsibility for instructors to inform students “of the generally accepted conclusion on the subject matter of the course when those conclusions differ from the conclusions of the instructor” and the responsibility for instructors to treat “students with courtesy and respect at all times.”

Instructors are also held responsible for “endeavoring to ensure that the learning environment is free from all forms of prejudice that negatively influence student learning, such as those based on age, ethnicity, gender, mental or physical impairment, race, religion, or sexual orientation.” These faculty responsibilities all echo the academic freedom policies found in Senate Bill 24, particularly the obligation for faculty to “make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own through classroom discussion or dissemination of written materials.”

It is commendable that the Miami U. policies explicitly allow students to file grievances when they encounter “difficulty with an instructor,” but the specifics of when students may file a grievance are left vague. We would recommend that the faculty policies forbidding the introduction of irrelevant controversial material in the classroom and holding professors responsible for making students aware of other viewpoints when the generally accepted conclusions on the subject differ from the instructors’ views be formulated as student rights. We would further recommend that the student grievance policy be amended to explicitly state that students have the right to file a grievance when their professors persistently introduce controversial material in the classroom that is irrelevant to the subject of the course or otherwise violate students’ academic freedom. Additionally, we suggest that the university make explicit the need for faculty to present a spectrum of “significant scholarly viewpoints” on the subjects they teach, not only in the case where the instructors’ views differ from the generally accepted conclusions of the field.

Ohio State University:

The Rules of the University Faculty of Ohio State Univesrity, section 3335-5-01 on academic freedom and responsibility state that:

(A) The Ohio state university endorses full academic freedom as essential to attain the goal of the free search for truth and its free exposition. Academic freedom and academic responsibility are twin guardians of the integrity of institutions of higher learning. This integrity is essential to the preservation of a free society and explains the willingness of society historically to accept the concept of academic freedom and, in addition, to protect it through the institution of academic tenure.

(B) The principal elements of academic freedom include the freedom of teachers to:

(1) Teach, conduct research, and publish research findings;

(2) Discuss in classrooms, in their own manner, any material that is relevant to the subject matter as defined in the course syllabus;

(3) Exercise their constitutional rights as citizens without institutional censorship or discipline;

(4) Seek changes in academic and institutional policies through lawful and peaceful means.

(C) Academic freedom carries with it correlative academic responsibilities. The principal elements include the responsibility of teachers to:

(1) Meet their defined teaching, research, and service obligations;

(2) Pursue excellence, intellectual honesty, and objectivity in teaching, in conducting research, and in publishing research findings;

(3) Encourage students and colleagues to engage in free discussion and inquiry;

(4) Evaluate student and colleague performance on a scholarly basis;

(5) Refrain from persistently introducing matters that have no bearing on the subject matter of the course;

(6) Work with appropriate individuals and bodies to provide optimal conditions conducive to the attainment of the free search for truth and its free exposition;

(7) Differentiate carefully between official activities as teachers and personal activities as citizens, and to act accordingly. (B/T 9/14/65, B/T 5/2/75, B/T 3/1/85) (emphasis added).

Reference: http://trustees.osu.edu/rules5/ru5-01.html

Analysis: The policies of Ohio State University accord with Senate Bill 24 in stating that professors should avoid persistently introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course. While the University policies on academic freedom do not explicitly call for professors to present a diverse range of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects they teach, they do state that professors have a responsibility “Work with appropriate individuals and bodies to provide optimal conditions conducive to the attainment of the free search for truth and its free exposition.”

Ohio University:

The Ohio University Faculty Handbook states in Section I on Academic Freedom that:

3. Academic Freedom

a. The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of his/her other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

b. All teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter that has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.ohio.edu/facultysenate/handbook/I-Academic-Freedom.cfm

Analysis: The academic freedom policy of Ohio University as stated in the faculty handbook accords with Senate Bill 24 in stating that professors should avoid introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course. This policy does not however address the need for faculty to present a diverse range of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects they teach.

University of Toledo:

The policy of the University of Toledo as approved by the Board of Trustees, Section II-1 on University Faculty and Instructional Staff states:

E. Academic Freedom

1. Instructional staff are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties…..

2. Instructional staff are entitled to full freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they shall be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject….

F. Professional Ethics

1. Instructional staff, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, shall recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end instructional staff shall devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They have an obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They shall practice intellectual honesty. Although instructional staff may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.

2. As teachers, instructional staff shall encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They shall hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Instructional staff shall demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Instructional staff shall make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s true merit. They shall respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They shall avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They shall acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from students. They shall protect students’ academic freedom…. (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.utoledo.edu/policy/index.asp?id=38

Analysis: The academic freedom policies of the University of Toledo accord with Senate Bill 24 in stating that professors should avoid introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course. This policy does not however address the need for faculty to present a diverse range of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects they teach.

Wright State University:

The collective bargaining agreement between Wright State University and the Wright State University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, valid until June 05, 2005, states in Article 5 on Academic Freedom and Professional Responsibilities that:

5.1.1 Academic freedom is essential for the proper development of the University. It functions to protect the institution from unwarranted interference by external groups and to ensure the retention of the services of those whose contributions toward its goals make them an essential part of the faculty. In so doing, it secures the autonomy and integrity of the University and makes its development as an intellectual community an object of primary concern.

5.1.2 Academic freedom is the unqualified right of every Member of the Bargaining Unit, whether or not that person possesses tenure. It carries a reciprocal obligation to respect and maintain the academic freedom of every other member of the University community.

5.1.3 Bargaining Unit Faculty are entitled to freedom in research and artistic expression and in the publication, display or performance of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties.

5.1.4 Bargaining Unit Faculty are entitled to freedom to teach, profess and discuss material in the classroom subject to limits detailed below.

5.2 Professional Responsibilities:

5.2.1 Members of the Bargaining Unit, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, shall recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and state the truth as they see it. To this end Members shall devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They have an obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They shall practice intellectual honesty. Although Members may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.

5.2.2 As teachers, Bargaining Unit Faculty shall encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They shall hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Bargaining Unit Faculty shall demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Members of the Bargaining Unit shall make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s true merit. They shall avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They shall acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from students. They shall protect students’ academic freedom (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.wright.edu/admin/aaup/Contract.html#5

One recent change was made to this Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Wright State University website notes that “The administration presented the proposal shown below for revising Article 5 “Academic Freedom and Professional Responsibilities” in our current CBA on January 21, 2005. Our Negotiating Team agreed to the administration’s proposal at the negotiating session of February 11.” The proposal mentioned made only one change to the previous policy as stated above which is to strike the key sentence “They shall protect students’ academic freedom” from section 5.2.2. The proposal to strike this phrase can be found here: http://wright.edu/admin/aaup/art5.html though no explanation of why the phrase was stricken is provided.

Additionally, the Wright State University Statement on Faculty Responsibilities from the Faculty Handbook states in part:

The mission statement of Wright State University emphasizes that “Wright State University is a comprehensive public university dedicated to advancing and disseminating knowledge through the pursuit of excellence in teaching, research and professional service….At Wright State University, undergraduate education is the heart of our diverse teaching enterprise, the other important components of which include two-year programs, certificate programs, and professional and graduate courses of study. Excellence in teaching is complemented by excellence in scholarship and service; thus, student learning outcomes are enhanced by the linkage of these three faculty responsibilities.

Teaching

At Wright State University, student learning is the primary objective. Hence, even though scholarship and service are important components of a faculty member’s responsibilities, teaching is the primary function of the faculty. Teaching takes many forms, including lectures, seminar discussions, individual tutorial sessions, laboratory exercises, and other types of instruction. Whatever the format, however, teaching entails a concerted effort to work closely with students, to train them in the methods of a discipline and of its substantive content, and to develop in them the ability to analyze and to synthesize (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.wright.edu/academics/fhandbook/responsibilities.html

Analysis: The academic freedom policies of Wright State University do not appear to address the need for professors to avoid introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course. These policies similarly do not address the need for faculty to present a diverse range of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects they teach, though they make the related statement that faculty should train students ” in the methods of a discipline and of its substantive content.”

Given these deficits, it is stunning that the University administration and faculty union made the recent decision to delete a sentence in the faculty collective bargaining agreement which specifically addressed students’ academic freedom. Vague as this statement was, it at least recognized the responsibility of faculty members to preserve and protect the academic freedom of their students.

We would recommend that Wright State University adopt both a faculty and student policy addressing the need for professors to avoid the introduction of irrelevant controversial material in the classroom and that the University amend its student grievance policy to explicitly state that students have the right to file a grievance when their professors persistently introduce controversial material in the classroom that is irrelevant to the subject of the course or otherwise violate students’ academic freedom. Additionally, we suggest that the university make explicit the need for faculty to present a spectrum of “significant scholarly viewpoints” on the subjects they teach.

Youngstown State University:

The Youngstown State University Statement of Ethics states that:

We, the faculty and administrative members of the Youngstown State University community, strive to create an environment that fosters excellence in teaching, learning, scholarship, university, and public service….the unfettered search for and dissemination of knowledge requires honesty both in its pursuit and communication. Moreover, professional autonomy, a hallmark of higher education, is preserved when it is exercised within the context of the principles this Statement supports….Through a respect for persons, we guarantee some basic rights and equal access to these rights as the respective benefits of the many facets of our environment. We all have a right to be heard. Included in this right is the requirement to work towards an environment that not only allows people to be heard but also empowers them to the point of making themselves heard. This includes the duty of not silencing others through discriminatory or prejudicial behavior, as well as the duty of seeking to eradicate that behavior which drowns out the voices that are typically heard less often. We all have a right to be safe. Included in this right is the freedom from exploitative power relationships. Within any community there are power differentials, but when such distinctions are enacted with an underlying respect for persons and their role in the community, destructive effects are minimized. Finally, we all have a right to be valued. Included in this right is the requirement to value others, such that we respect their privacy and confidentiality….

Responsibility

As educational leaders, faculty and administrative members of our University community must demonstrate responsibility to our students, colleagues, institution, discipline, and community.

Within the YSU community, we recognize the responsibility to value all students. In order to contribute to the ongoing development of students, we will value their opinions, time, and academic contributions. Within this framework of responsibility, classroom performance will be assessed in ways that are valid, open, fair, and consistent. As members of the YSU community, we recognize the responsibility of demonstrating that we value the dignity of our colleagues in such a way as to preserve their academic, professional, and personal reputation. Members of our community are to work cooperatively with colleagues to foster professional development.

Members of the institution are to be aware of and value the educational goals, policies, and standards of the institution. Members agree to work for the good of the institution as a whole and will endeavor to abide by stated University policies and regulations that pertain to its well-being. Neither outside commitments nor personal gain will be allowed to come into conflict with this responsibility.

Members of the YSU community shall maintain a high regard for and a continued involvement in the discipline in which they are involved. This requires gaining and maintaining a high level of valid knowledge that ensures that professional expertise is accurate, current, representative, appropriate, and without personal bias….

Reference: http://cc.ysu.edu/acad-senate/ethics_statement.htm

Additionally, The Student Handbook at Youngstown State states that students have the right to “free inquiry, expression, and/or Assembly” and “The right to pursue educational goals and appropriate opportunities for learning in the classroom and on campus though no explicit mention of academic freedom was found to be listed among these rights.

Reference: http://penguinconnection.ysu.edu/rights/the_code_2001.pdf

Analysis: It should be noted that the attempts to research the academic freedom policies of Youngstown State University through the university website were extremely frustrating. A search of the site using the keywords “academic freedom” revealed a faculty senate resolution opposing Senate Bill 24, but did not help in locating YSU’s actual policies. Further attempts to locate university policies turned up references to a “University Guidebook” and “Faculty Handbook” but numerous attempts to locate these complete documents online were unsuccessful.

With this caveat, the academic freedom policies of Youngstown State University, so far as they were able to be examined on the University website, do not appear to address the need for professors to avoid introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course. These policies similarly do not address the need for faculty to present a diverse range of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects they teach, though they do note the importance of allowing all viewpoints to be heard and the “responsibility to value all students.”

We would therefore recommend that Wright State University adopt both a faculty and student policy addressing the need for professors to avoid the introduction of irrelevant controversial material in the classroom and that the University amend its student grievance policy to explicitly state that students have the right to file a grievance when their professors persistently introduce controversial material in the classroom that is irrelevant to the subject of the course or otherwise violate students’ academic freedom. Additionally, we suggest that the university make explicit the need for faculty to present a spectrum of “significant scholarly viewpoints” on the subjects they teach.

Note: The policies quoted in this document are excerpts of the originals that were cut for reasons of length and to draw attention to the passages which relate to Senate Bill 24. To view the complete policies, please visit the websites given in the reference links.