admin

By Sara Dogan–SAF–10/15/05

Temple University:

The Temple University Faculty Handbook states in section I on Academic Freedom that:

All members of the faculty, whether tenured or not, are entitled to academic freedom as set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure*, formulated by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors, as follows:

“(a) Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

(b) 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)

(c) College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”

Reference: http://www.temple.edu/vpfaculty/TU_Faculty_Handbook.pdf (page 3)

Analysis: The policies of Temple University accord with the AAUP guidelines in stating that professors should avoid persistently introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of the course. However, 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.

It is notable that Pennsylvania House Resolution 177 is much less stringent in its restriction on professors’ professional conduct in the classroom than this existing Temple University faculty policy, holding only that the select committee will examine whether “students have an academic environment, quality life on campus and reasonable access to course materials that create an environment conducive to learning, the development of critical thinking and the exploration and expression of independent thought and that the students are evaluated based on their subject knowledge; and that students are graded based on academic merit, without regard for ideological views, and that academic freedom and the right to explore and express independent thought is available to and practiced freely by faculty and students.”

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, which accords with the guidelines recently endorsed by the American Council on Education and 27 additional higher education organizations calling for “intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas” on university campuses.

University of Pittsburgh:

After extensive searching through the University of Pittsburgh website, faculty handbook, and university policies, a specific policy solely dedicated to the issue of academic freedom was not able to be located. However, several different policies and pronouncements of the University touch on this topic:

The University of Pittsburgh Faculty Handbook policy on Academic Integrity states that:

It is the direct responsibility of faculty to encourage free inquiry and expression and to provide an academic environment in their classrooms and in their contact with students that reflects a high standard of integrity and is conducive to learning.

Pursuant to the University’s code of faculty obligations relating to academic integrity, faculty are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner, as summarized below:…..

5. To describe to students, within the period in which a student may add or drop a course, orally, in writing, or by reference to printed course descriptions, the general content and objectives of a course; and announce the methods and standards of evaluation, including the importance to be assigned various factors in academic evaluations and, in advance of any evaluation, the permissible materials or references allowed during evaluation.

6. To base all academic evaluations upon good-faith professional judgment.

7. Not to consider, in academic evaluation, such factors as race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin, political or cultural affiliation, lifestyle, activities, or behavior outside the classroom unrelated to academic achievement.

9. Not to exploit their professional relationship with students for private advantage; and to refrain from soliciting the assistance of students for private purposes in a manner that infringes upon such students’ freedom of choice.

12. To respect the dignity of students individually and collectively in the classroom and other academic contexts. (emphasis added)

Reference: http://www.pitt.edu/~provost/handbook.html (under III: Academic Policies)

Additionally, a Statement on Academic Freedom from the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom released June 34, 2003 states in part that:

The collective commitment of the academic community to the principles of academic freedom played an important role in shaping the major American universities of the twentieth century, including our own. This commitment is most famously embodied in the “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom” of the American Association of University Professors, first put forward in 1940 and subsequently amended and referred to or incorporated into a variety of documents…. More locally, commitment to academic freedom is embedded in the University of Pittsburgh Bylaws and safeguarded by the rights and obligations of faculty to participate in governance at the University, especially in the determination of the curriculum, the development of policies, and the selection of the faculty and of the academic leadership of the University……

After its review of the particular context and priorities of the University of Pittsburgh at this time, the Committee affirms that, at its most fundamental, the academic freedom of all members of the University centers on the right of individual scholars to use their professional expertise to select and pursue lines of enquiry, to come to conclusions and to formulate scholarly opinions on the questions that they study, and to translate their knowledge and understanding into effective instruction appropriately grounded in principles and practices of disciplines and professions. It is the responsibility of the University to support individuals in the exercise of these rights within the bounds of available resources, the conflicting demands put on those resources, and the constraints of shared governance….

Our ability to assert the rights and privileges of academic freedom depends on our willingness to accept concomitant responsibilities at each of the levels at which academic freedom is exercised. These include the responsibility to meet the highest scholarly standards in work that is carried out under the protection of academic freedom, the responsibility to respect the academic rights of others, and the responsibility to participate constructively in collective processes through which these rights are exercised. Most especially, it implies the responsibility to treat all members of the community of scholars that constitutes the university, including students as scholars under instruction, with the dignity that respects all honestly held opinions and all cogently articulated arguments (emphasis added).

Reference: http://www.pitt.edu/~provost/afstatement.html

Analysis: It should be noted that the attempts to research the academic freedom policies of the University of Pittsburgh through the university website were extremely frustrating. A search of the site using the keywords “academic freedom” revealed over 200 web pages relating to the subject, but did not lead to a clear policy statement on academic freedom. Further attempts to locate university policies in the Faculty Handbook and Faculty Policies and Procedures sections of the website were similarly unsuccessful.

The academic freedom policies of the University of Pittsburgh 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. The lack of a clear single policy addressing academic freedom makes it difficult to determine exactly what student rights are protected at the University, but it seems clear that these policies do hold that professors may not evaluate students on the basis of their political or religious beliefs, or any behavior external to the course in which the student is enrolled. The ad hoc statement of the committee on academic freedom is somewhat more explicit in stating that all members of the university community should be treated “with the dignity that respects all honestly held opinions and all cogently articulated arguments,” though it is unclear whether this statement is binding. These policies do not appear to address the need for faculty to present a diverse range of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects they teach.

We would recommend that the University of Pittsburgh adopt a clear policy statement for both students and faculty on the meaning and importance of academic freedom, including both a faculty and student policy addressing the need for professors to avoid the introduction of irrelevant controversial material in the classroom. The university should also 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 the Academic Bill of Rights and House Resolution 177. To view the complete policies, please visit the websites given in the reference links.

By Sara Dogan–SAF–03/15/06

University of Kansas

Policies:

The University of Kansas has numerous policies which reference academic freedom and related topics. Among them are:

KANSAS BOARD OF REGENTS POLICY STATEMENT ON THE USE OF CONTROVERSIAL MATERIALIN INSTRUCTION, INCLUDING THE USE OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIALS IN INSTRUCTION (adopted April 23, 2004).

Link: http://www.provost.ku.edu/policy/…042304.doc

The Kansas Board of Regents recognizes that academic freedom must be balanced by academic responsibility. To that end, it is the policy of the Kansas Board of Regents to require each institution within its jurisdiction to adopt the following set of precepts on the use of sexually explicit materials, the teaching about pedophilia and the conduct and management of courses relative to these topics:

“Students are entitled to an atmosphere conducive to learning and to even-handed treatment in all aspects of the teacher-student relationship. Faculty members may not refuse to enroll or teach students on the grounds of their beliefs or the possible uses to which they may put the knowledge to be gained in a course. Students should not be forced by the authority inherent in the instructional role to make particular personal choices as to political action or their own social behavior. Evaluation of students and the award of credit must be based on academic performance professionally judged and not on matters irrelevant to that performance, whether personality, race, religion, degree of political activism, or personal beliefs.

It is the mastery teachers have of their subjects and their own scholarship that entitles them to their classrooms and to freedom in the presentation of their subjects. Thus, it is improper for an instructor persistently to intrude material that has no relation to the subject, or to fail to present the subject matter of the course as announced to the students and as approved by the faculty in their collective responsibility for the curriculum.”

——————————————————————————————————-

Source: Excerpted from the AAUP’s 1970 Statement on Freedom and Responsibility.

Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff (revised in 1998)
Section: C.2.a.4. Academic Freedom

Link: http://www.provost.ku.edu/policy/faculty….a.4.

AAUP statement. The University has a long tradition of dedication to the principles of academic freedom and has sought to implement these principles as they are embodied in the “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” and further developed in later revisions. The University’s position on academic freedom is, therefore, fully reflected in the following excerpts from that statement:

Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

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. . . .

College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution. . . .

Regents Policy. In recognition of the fact that academic freedom includes not only the right of dissent, but also the freedom to pursue academic aims, the Board of Regents has adopted a policy on interference with the conduct of the institution. It is reproduced from page 6G of the Board’s Policy and Procedures Manual:

Actions by faculty, staff, students or visitors which unnecessarily and unreasonably obstruct or interfere with the teaching, research or learning functions or other normal and necessary activities of a Regents institution, or which create an imminent threat of danger to persons or property, may constitute grounds for suspension, dismissal or termination, or permanent exclusion from the campus. (1970, 1986, 1996)

Handbook For Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff
Article IV: Faculty Responsibility: 1. Teaching (pages 55-56)

Faculty who teach are expected to teach courses in their department or school in accordance with the needs, requirements and expectations thereof and the general requirements concerning the conduct of classes specified in various University regulations.

Good teaching requires continual application and effort. Faculty who teach are expected to keep abreast of new developments in their fields and must maintain credentials as scholars so that they are part of the creative process by which the frontiers of knowledge and culture are continually being expanded. A teacher should be engaged with his/her particular discipline and should be able to convey to the students the value of the subject.

Teaching duties of a professor include not only classroom activities, but also such duties as preparing course syllabi, lectures and examinations; being available for consultation; supervising independent work undertaken by students; directing theses and dissertations; evaluating students; advising; and participating in curriculum planning. A professor is expected to treat students with courtesy and to respect their rights, including, but not limited to, academic freedom and those rights as outlined in the Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities.

Academic advising is a part of the teaching responsibility of faculty who teach. In the case of non-teaching faculty, comparable professional responsibilities shall be those defined by their departments and the relevant standards of their disciplines.

IV. Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities
(Lawrence Campus)

[Relevant sections on academic freedom are excerpted. For the full Code, see http://www.vpss.ku.edu/rights.shtml]

Title
Art. 1. These rules shall be known as the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities.

Bill of Rights

Art. 2. The following enumeration of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by students in their capacity as members of the student body or as citizens of the community at large:

• Free inquiry, expression, and assembly are guaranteed to all students.
• Students are free to pursue their educational goals; appropriate opportunities for learning in the classroom and on the campus shall be provided by the University.

The right of students to be free from harassment or discrimination based on sex, race, color, national origin, religion, ancestry, sexual orientation, disability, or, as specified by law, age, or veteran status, marital or parental status shall not be abridged. University policies on Sexual Harrassment, Racial and Ethnic Harassment, and the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Grievance Procedures provide guidance and explain these rights…..

Classroom Expression

Art. 5. Discussion and expression of all views relevant to the subject matter are permitted in the classroom, subject only to the responsibility of the instructor to maintain order.

1. Students are responsible for learning the content of any course for which they are enrolled.
2. Requirements of participation in classroom discussion and submission of written exercises are consistent with this section.

Art. 6. Academic evaluation of student performance shall be neither prejudicial, capricious, nor arbitrary.

Art. 7. Information about a student’s views, beliefs, and political associations acquired in the course of instruction, advising, and counseling is confidential and is not to be disclosed to others unless by written consent of the student.

Analysis:

The policies of the University of Kansas accord with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) guidelines, and in several instances quote them directly, in stating that professors should avoid persistently introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of their courses.

We can see this in the Kansas Board of Regents’ statement on the use of controversial material in instruction which quotes the 1970 Statement on Freedom and Responsibility as stating:

“It is the mastery teachers have of their subjects and their own scholarship that entitles them to their classrooms and to freedom in the presentation of their subjects. Thus, it is improper for an instructor persistently to intrude material that has no relation to the subject, or to fail to present the subject matter of the course as announced to the students and as approved by the faculty in their collective responsibility for the curriculum.”

The AAUP policy quoted also makes clear that students must not in any way be asked to compromise their personal political views in the classroom, stating “Students should not be forced by the authority inherent in the instructional role to make particular personal choices as to political action or their own social behavior.”

We see these same aspects of academic freedom highlighted also in the faculty handbook which states that “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.”

The policies of the University of Kansas do not explicitly mention the importance of intellectual diversity or teaching a spectrum of significant scholarly beliefs on the subjects examined in academic courses, but they do refer to the need for professors to stay current in their fields (presumably for the purposes of being able to teach the current spectrum of knowledge on their subjects), noting that “Good teaching requires continual application and effort. Faculty who teach are expected to keep abreast of new developments in their fields and must maintain credentials as scholars so that they are part of the creative process by which the frontiers of knowledge and culture are continually being expanded. A teacher should be engaged with his/her particular discipline and should be able to convey to the students the value of the subject.”

It is notable that these policies are significantly more stringent in outlining appropriate professorial conduct in the classroom than is Kansas House Concurrent Resolution No. 5035 which states that “faculty members will not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or antireligious indoctrination.”

While the academic freedom policies outlined for faculty and staff are fairly comprehensive, those published for the benefits of students are vague by comparison and lack clarity in describing the standard of behavior students should expect from their professors.

For instance, the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities states that “Free inquiry, expression, and assembly are guaranteed to all students” and that “students are free to pursue their educational goals” but does not make any explicit mention of the protection from being forced to compromise their political views or of the professional standards which prohibit professors from using their classrooms to discuss controversial topics beyond the subject of study.

Even the explicit policy on “harassment of discrimination” does not mention political views although it does mention “sex, race, color, national origin, religion, ancestry, sexual orientation, disability, or, as specified by law, age, or veteran status, marital or parental status.”

Recommendations:

We would recommend that the faculty policies forbidding the persistent introduction of irrelevant controversial material in the classroom and preventing professor from forcing political actions on students be formulated as student rights and included in the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities. 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, which accords with the guidelines recently endorsed by the American Council on Education and 27 additional higher education organizations calling for “intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas” on university campuses.

Kansas State University:

Policies:

University Handbook, Appendix C: Academic Freedom and Tenure

Link: http://www.k-state.edu/academicservices/fhbook/fhxc.html

Academic Freedom and Tenure (1940 Statement of Principles)

In 1940, following a series of joint conferences begun in 1934, representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges agreed upon a restatement of principles set forth in the 1925 Conference Statement of Academic Freedom and Tenure. This restatement, known to the profession as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, has been endorsed by most educational and professional academic organizations, such as the American Council on Education and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, in which Kansas State University holds membership.

The purpose of this statement is to promote public understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon procedures to assure them in colleges and universities. 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.

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.

Tenure is a means to certain ends, specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.

Academic Freedom

1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but they should be careful not to introduce into teaching controversial matter which 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 the appointment.
3. College or university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As persons of learning and as educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not institutional spokespeople.

[Emphasis added].

KSU FACULTY HANDBOOK; 1984; 1988, P. 53.
Cited by the website of the Kansas State Center for Teaching and Learning

Link: http://www.k-state.edu/catl/freedom.htm

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but they should be careful not to introduce into teaching controversial matter which 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 the appointment.

College or university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As persons of learning and as educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not institutional spokespeople.

“1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” American Association of University Professors.

[Emphasis added].

KSU POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL

.020 Policy for Discrimination and Harassment Complaints

Link: http://www.k-state.edu/policies/ppm/1020.html

Kansas State University will maintain academic and work environments that are free of discrimination, racial/ethnic harassment, sexual harassment and retaliation for filing a complaint under this policy. Discrimination based on race, ethnic or national origin, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, ancestry, disability, military status, or veteran status is prohibited. Retaliation against a person for reporting or objecting to discrimination or harassment is a violation of this policy whether or not discrimination, racial/ethnic harassment or sexual harassment occurred. Persons who violate this policy are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from employment or expulsion from the University. Supervisors and administrators are obligated to report complaints to the Office Of Affirmative Action, to keep complaints confidential, to protect the privacy of all parties involved in a complaint and to prevent or eliminate discrimination, harassment or retaliation; failure to do so is a violation of this policy. Appropriate sanctions and remedial actions will be taken. This policy is not intended and will not be used to infringe on academic freedom, or to censor or punish students, faculty, employees, or staff who exercise their First Amendment right to express ideas and opinions on any topic.

Complaints must be filed within one year of the alleged behavior, are confidential and will not be disclosed to anyone who does not have a need to know. The University cannot guarantee complainants, respondents or witnesses absolute confidentiality because the University is obligated to investigate complaints. A responsible administrator and a representative of the Office of Affirmative Action will evaluate each complaint and, if necessary conduct a prompt, thorough and fair administrative review. The time required for reviews may vary, but the goal is to complete reviews as expeditiously as possible.

Any person who knowingly files a false complaint, or who knowingly provides false or misleading information is subject to disciplinary action. No action will be taken against an individual who makes a good faith complaint, even if the allegations are not substantiated.

[Emphasis added].

Analysis:

The policies of the Kansas State University accord with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) guidelines and quote them directly in stating that professors should avoid persistently introducing into their teaching controversial material which is irrelevant to the subject of their courses.

KSU’s policies on discrimination and harassment note that “Kansas State University will maintain academic and work environments that are free of discrimination, racial/ethnic harassment, sexual harassment and retaliation for filing a complaint under this policy. Discrimination based on race, ethnic or national origin, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, ancestry, disability, military status, or veteran status is prohibited” but this policy notably omits any mention of political beliefs or affiliation, and thus does not apply to situations where faculty or students are being abused for such beliefs.

The policy on academic freedom from the University Handbook highlights the importance of protecting the academic freedom not only of professors but also of students, stating “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.”

Despite this specific reference to the importance of protecting students’ academic freedom, KSU’s policies are highly deficient in this regard. Searching on the main KSU website for references to students’ academic freedom and students’ rights brought up a link to a policy on “Student Rights & Responsibilities,” but the link for this policy led only to an error message-a dead end for any student trying to determine his or her rights. (http://www.ksu.edu/osas/pdf/2003-04%20handbook.pdf)

Searching through the “Students” section of the K-State.edu website for information on academic freedom was similarly frustrating. It is not among the main topics listed on the site. The closest thing we could discover was the Registrar’s Office page which contains links to “Academic Policies and Procedures” but academic freedom is not among the topics listed and one has to click through several sections to even find these policies (http://www.k-state.edu/registrar/a_r/).

Recommendations:

We would recommend that the faculty policies forbidding the persistent introduction of irrelevant controversial material in the classroom and preventing professor from forcing political actions on students be formulated as student rights and included in the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities, which should be made available directly from the student section of the K-State website. 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 adopt a policy noting the importance of intellectual diversity in academia and highlighting the need for faculty to present a spectrum of “significant scholarly viewpoints” on the subjects they teach, which accords with the guidelines recently endorsed by the American Council on Education and 27 additional higher education organizations calling for “intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas” on university campuses.

—

Excerpted from the Students for Academic Freedom mission and strategy booklet by David Horowitz:

1. To Promote Intellectual Diversity

Universities are institutions of learning not platforms for political parties or intellectual sects. They exist to serve all their students, not just those who share the political or particular beliefs of their professors, especially on matters where reasonable people disagree. They are obligated to make students aware of a broad range of serious intellectual perspectives, not just the perspectives that correspond to the beliefs of their professors. This has been a hallmark view of the academic profession since its beginnings.

In 1915 the American Association of University Professors issued a landmark report on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The premise of this report was that human knowledge is a never-ending pursuit of the truth; that there is no humanly accessible truth that is not in principle open to challenge; and that no party or intellectual faction can be assumed to have a monopoly on wisdom. Therefore, learning is most likely to thrive in an environment of intellectual diversity that protects and fosters independence of thought and speech. Indeed, as John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, even truth would become dead and formal if unchallenged by criticism and debate.

Unfortunately the atmosphere that prevails on most college campuses today does not foster intellectual diversity or the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. Liberal Arts faculties at most universities are politically and philosophically one-sided, while partisan propagandizing often intrudes into classroom discourse. It is appropriate for faculty to want open-minded students in their classes, not disciples. Faculty bias is reflected in the curriculum of courses available, in the manner in which they are taught, in readings assigned for classroom study, and in discussions only open to one side of a debate.

It is the goal of Students for Academic Freedom to secure greater representation for under-represented ideas and to promote intellectual fairness and inclusion in all aspects of the curriculum, including the faculty hiring process, the spectrum of courses available, reading materials assigned, and in the decorum of the classroom and the campus public square.

2. To defend students’ right to be treated with respect by faculty and administrators, regardless of their political or religious beliefs

Professors are hired to teach all students, not just students who share their political, religious and philosophical beliefs. It is absolutely essential, therefore, that professors and lecturers not force their opinions about philosophy, politics and other contestable issues on students in the classroom and in all academic environments. This is a cardinal principle of academic freedom laid down by the American Association of University Professors.

In The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declared: “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.”

In a 1970 clarification and re-endorsement of this principle, the AAUP said: “The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is ‘controversial.’ Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry, which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.” (“1970 Interpretative Comments,” endorsed by the 56th annual association meeting as association policy.)

In an academic environment professors are in a unique position of authority vis-à-vis their students. The use of academic incentives and disincentives to advance a partisan or sectarian view creates a environment of indoctrination which is unprofessional and contrary to the educational mission. It is a violation of students’ academic freedom. The creation of closed, political fiefdoms in colleges, programs or departments, is the opposite of academic freedom and is undeserving of public subsidy or private educational support.

The 1915 General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure clearly states that classroom indoctrination is impermissible. It admonishes faculty to avoid “taking unfair advantage of the student’s immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher’s own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to 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 1967, the American Association of University Professors, in conjunction with a number of other higher education organizations, issued a Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students that reinforced and amplified its stance against classroom indoctrination by affirming the inseparability of “the freedom to teach and freedom to learn.” In the words of the report, “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.”