admin

The Student Bill of Rights

May 17, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

I. The Mission of the University.

The central purposes of a University are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large. Free inquiry and free speech within the academic community are indispensable to the achievement of these goals. The freedom to teach and to learn depend upon the creation of appropriate conditions and opportunities on the campus as a whole as well as in the classrooms and lecture halls. These purposes reflect the values — pluralism, diversity, opportunity, critical intelligence, openness and fairness — that are the cornerstones of American society.

II. Academic Freedom

1. The Concept. Academic freedom and intellectual diversity are values indispensable to the American university. From its first formulation in the General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors, the concept of academic freedom has been premised on the idea 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 has a monopoly on wisdom. Therefore, academic freedom is most likely to thrive in an environment of intellectual diversity that protects and fosters independence of thought and speech. In the words of the General Report, it is vital to protect “as the first condition of progress, [a] complete and unlimited freedom to pursue inquiry and publish its results.”

Because free inquiry and its fruits are crucial to the democratic enterprise itself, academic freedom is a national value as well. In a historic 1967 decision (Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York ) the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a New York State loyalty provision for teachers with these words: “Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, [a] transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.” In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, (1957) the Court observed that the “essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities [was] almost self-evident.”

2. The Practice. Academic freedom consists in protecting the intellectual independence of professors, researchers and students in the pursuit of knowledge and the expression of ideas from interference by legislators or authorities within the institution itself. This means that no political, ideological or religious orthodoxy will be imposed on professors, researchers and students through the hiring or tenure or termination process, or through the grading system or through the control of the classroom or any other administrative means. Nor shall legislatures impose any such orthodoxy through their control of the university budget.

From its very first statement on academic freedom, the university community has recognized the vulnerability of students in particular to political and ideological abuses of the university as an institution. The 1915 General Report admonished 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 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 1967, the AAUP’s Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students affirmed 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.”

Professors are hired to teach all students, not just students who share their political, religious and philosophical beliefs. It is 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 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 an 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 does not deserve public subsidy or private educational support.

Therefore, to ensure the integrity of the educational process and to protect the principle of intellectual diversity, the following principles and procedures shall be observed. These principles fully apply only to public universities and to private universities that present themselves as bound by the canons of academic freedom. Private institutions choosing to restrict academic freedom on the basis of creed have an obligation to be as explicit as is possible about the scope and nature of these restrictions.

1. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

2. 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.

3. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.

4. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.

5. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.

6. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.

—

Mission and Strategy Academic Bill of Rights

Declaración De Derechos Académicos

May 17, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

I. La Misión de la Universidad.

Los propósitos centrales de una Universidad son la búsqueda de la verdad, el descubrimiento de nuevos conocimientos a través del saber y la investigación, el estudio y la crítica razonada de las tradiciones intelectuales y culturales, la enseñanza y el desarrollo general de los estudiantes para ayudarles a convertirse en individuos creativos y ciudadanos provechosos de una democracia plural, y la transmisión del conocimiento y el aprendizaje a la sociedad general. La libre investigación y la libre expresión dentro de la comunidad académica son indispensables para alcanzar esos objetivos. La libertad para enseñar y para aprender depende de la creación de condiciones y oportunidades apropiadas en la totalidad del campus así como en las aulas y las salas de conferencias. Estos propósitos reflejan los valores — pluralismo, diversidad, oportunidad, inteligencia crítica, apertura y equidad — que son las claves de la sociedad americana.

II. La Libertad Académica.

1. El Concepto. La libertad académica y la diversidad intelectual son valores indispensables para la universidad Americana. Desde su primera formulación en el Informe General de la Comisión sobre Libertad Académica y Permanencia de la Asociación Americana de Profesores Universitarios, el concepto de libertad académica ha tenido su premisa en la idea de que el conocimiento humano es una persecución ilimitada de la verdad, que no hay un acceso humano a la verdad que no esté como principio abierto a la disputa, y que no hay ningún partido o facción intelectual que tiene el monopolio del saber. En consecuencia, la libertad académica prosperará con más probabilidad en un ambiente de diversidad intelectual que proteja y ampare la independencia de pensamiento y de expresión. En palabras del Informe General, es vital proteger ¨como primera condición de progreso, [a] una completa e ilimitada libertad para perseguir la indagación y publicar sus resultados”.

Como la libre indagación y sus resultados son cruciales para la empresa democrática por sí misma, la libertad académica es también un valor nacional. En una decisión histórica de 1967 (Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York ) la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos cambió una provisión de lealtad para profesores del Estado de Nueva York con estas palabras: “Nuestra Nación está profundamente comprometida en salvaguardar la libertad académica, [a] valor trascendente para todos nosotros y no solamente para los profesores involucrados”. En Sweezy v. New Hampshire, (1957) la Corte observó que la “esencialidad de la libertad en la comunidad de universidades americanas [era] casi auto-evidente.”.

2. La Práctica. La libertad académica consiste en proteger la libertad intelectual de profesores, investigadores y estudiantes en la búsqueda del saber y la expresión de las ideas de la interferencia de legisladores o autoridades dentro de la misma institución. Esto significa que ninguna ortodoxia política, ideológica o religiosa se impondrá a los profesores o investigadores a través del proceso de contratación o permanencia o terminación, o a través de cualquier otro medio administrativo de las instituciones académicas. Ni tampoco las legislaturas impondrán ninguna ortodoxia a través de su control del presupuesto universitario.

Esta protección incluye a los estudiantes. Desde la primera frase sobre la libertad académica, se ha reconocido que la independencia intelectual significa la protección de los estudiantes – así como del profesorado – respecto a la imposición de cualquier ortodoxia de naturaleza política, religiosa o ideológica. El Informe General de 1915 advertía a los profesores que evitaran ¨aprovecharse injustamente de la inmadurez de los estudiantes mediante el adoctrinamiento con las propias opiniones del profesor antes de que el estudiante tuviera la oportunidad de examinar equitativamente otras opiniones sobre los asuntos en cuestión, y antes de que tuviera suficiente conocimiento y madurez de juicio como para poder formar una opinión definitiva por sí mismo¨. En 1967, el Informe Conjunto sobre Derechos y Libertades de Estudiantes del AAUP reforzó y amplió esta cuestión al afirmar la inseparabilidad de ¨la libertad para enseñar y la libertad para aprender¨. En palabras del informe, ¨los estudiantes deberían ser libres para tomar excepciones razonadas a los datos o visiones ofrecidas en cualquier curso de estudio y para guardarse sus opiniones sobre cuestiones de opinión¨.

En consecuencia, para asegurar la independencia intelectual de profesores y estudiantes y para proteger el principio de la diversidad intelectual, los siguientes principios y procedimientos serán salvaguardados.

Estos principios son aplicables por entero solo a las universidades públicas y a las universidades privadas que se presentan a sí mismas como regidas por los cánones de la libertad académica. Las instituciones privadas que elijan restringir la libertad académica sobre la base de credo tienen la obligación de ser lo más explicitas posibles sobre la mira y la naturaleza de esas restricciones.

1. Todo el profesorado será contratado, despedido, ascendido o elegido para la permanencia sobre la base de su competencia y conocimiento apropiado en el campo de su especialización y, en las humanidades, las ciencias sociales, y las artes, con una visión hacia la protección de la pluralidad de metodologías y perspectivas. Ningún profesor será contratado o despedido o negado su ascenso o su titularidad sobre la base de sus creencias políticas o religiosas.

2. Ningún miembro del profesorado será excluido de la titularidad, de los comités de búsqueda y de contratación sobre la base de sus creencias políticas o religiosas.

3. Los estudiantes serán evaluados solamente sobre la base de sus respuestas razonadas y su apropiado conocimiento en las materias y disciplinas de estudio, no sobre la base de sus creencias políticas o religiosas.

4. Los currículos y las listas de lecturas en las humanidades y las ciencias sociales deben reflejar la incertidumbre y el carácter indefinido de todo conocimiento humano en estas áreas proporcionando a los estudiantes fuentes contrapuestas y puntos de vista apropiados. Mientras los profesores son y deberían ser libres para buscar sus propios descubrimientos y perspectivas al presentar sus puntos de vistas, deberían considerar y advertir a los estudiantes de otros puntos de vista. Las disciplinas académicas deberían dar la bienvenida a una diversidad de acercamientos sobre temas no unívocos.

5. Exponer a los estudiantes al espectro de los puntos de vista académicos más significativos en torno a los temas examinados en los cursos es una responsabilidad fundamental para el profesorado. El profesor no usará sus cursos con el objetivo de realizar un adoctrinamiento político, ideológico, religioso o anti-religioso.

6. La selección de conferenciantes, la disposición de fondos económicos para colocar programas de conferencias y otras actividades estudiantiles tendrán que salvaguardar los principios de la libertad académica y promover el pluralismo intelectual.

7. Un ambiente que lleve al intercambio civilizado de ideas es un componente esencial de toda Universidad libre, por lo que no se tolerará la obstrucción de conferenciantes invitados al campus, la destrucción de escritos en el campus o cualquier otro esfuerzo de obstrucción este intercambio.

8. El conocimiento avanza cuando los individuos académicos tienen la libertad de alcanzar sus propias conclusiones sobre los métodos, hechos, y teorías han sido validadas por la investigación. Las instituciones académicas y las sociedades profesionales formadas para avanzar en el conocimiento en un área de investigación, para mantener la integridad del proceso de investigación, y para organizar las vidas profesionales de los investigadores relacionados sirven de avenidas indispensables por las que los investigadores circulan sus hallazgos y debaten su interpretación. Para llevar a cabo estas funciones de forma adecuada, las instituciones académicas y las sociedades profesionales deberían mantener una postura de neutralidad organizadora con respecto a los desacuerdos sustanciales que divide a los investigadores en cuestiones dentro, o fuera, de sus campos de investigación.

Op. cit., p. 50

—

Academic Bill of Rights Battle For Academic Freedom

Academic Bill of Rights

May 17, 2020 by admin Leave a Comment

Academic Bill of Rights is also available in Spanish

I. The Mission of the University.

II. Academic Freedom

1. The Concept . Academic freedom and intellectual diversity are values indispensable to the American university. From its first formulation in the General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors, the concept of academic freedom has been premised on the idea 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 has a monopoly on wisdom. Therefore, academic freedom is most likely to thrive in an environment of intellectual diversity that protects and fosters independence of thought and speech. In the words of the General Report, it is vital to protect “as the first condition of progress, [a] complete and unlimited freedom to pursue inquiry and publish its results.”

Because free inquiry and its fruits are crucial to the democratic enterprise itself, academic freedom is a national value as well. In a historic 1967 decision ( Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York ) the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a New York State loyalty provision for teachers with these words: “Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, [a] transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.” In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, (1957) the Court observed that the “essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities [was] almost self-evident.”

2. The Practice . Academic freedom consists in protecting the intellectual independence of professors, researchers and students in the pursuit of knowledge and the expression of ideas from interference by legislators or authorities within the institution itself. This means that no political, ideological or religious orthodoxy will be imposed on professors and researchers through the hiring or tenure or termination process, or through any other administrative means by the academic institution. Nor shall legislatures impose any such orthodoxy through their control of the university budget.

This protection includes students. From the first statement on academic freedom, it has been recognized that intellectual independence means the protection of students – as well as faculty – from the imposition of any orthodoxy of a political, religious or ideological nature. The 1915 General Report admonished 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 AAUP’s Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students reinforced and amplified this injunction 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.”

Therefore, to secure the intellectual independence of faculty and students and to protect the principle of intellectual diversity, the following principles and procedures shall be observed.

These principles fully apply only to public universities and to private universities that present themselves as bound by the canons of academic freedom. Private institutions choosing to restrict academic freedom on the basis of creed have an obligation to be as explicit as is possible about the scope and nature of these restrictions.

1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.

2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

4. 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.

5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.

6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.

7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.

8. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.

Op. cit., p. 50

—

The Student Bill of Rights Declaración De Derechos Académicos

Final Report of the Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education

November 4, 2008 by admin Leave a Comment

NOVEMBER 21, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

Chairman’s Remarks 3

House Resolution 177 4

Members of the Select Committee 7

Purpose 8

Committee Structure 8

Method 9

Findings 12

Recommendations 14

Appendix A: Remarks of Select Committee Members

Appendix B: “University of Pittsburgh: Through One Hundred and Fifty Years”

Appendix C: New Pennsylvania State University and Temple University Academic Freedom Policies

Appendix D: Meeting Agendas and Transcript Copy Information
CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS

INTENTIONALLY BLANK
PRIOR PRINTER’S NOS. 1280, 2451 PRINTER’S NO. 2553

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA

HOUSE RESOLUTION
No. 177 Session of 2005

INTRODUCED BY ARMSTRONG, BARRAR, BENNINGHOFF, BIRMELIN, BOYD,
CALTAGIRONE, CLYMER, CRAHALLA, CREIGHTON, FAIRCHILD, FICHTER,
FORCIER, GABIG, GILLESPIE, GINGRICH, HERSHEY, JAMES,
W. KELLER, KILLION, LEH, METCALFE, R. MILLER, MUSTIO,
PHILLIPS, READSHAW, ROBERTS, ROHRER, SCHRODER, STERN,
R. STEVENSON, E. Z. TAYLOR, TRUE, WILT, YOUNGBLOOD,
DENLINGER, CIVERA, RAPP, FLEAGLE, FLICK, BASTIAN, BROWNE,
HARPER AND PAYNE, MARCH 29, 2005

AS AMENDED, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 5, 2005

A RESOLUTION
1 Establishing a select committee to examine the academic
2 atmosphere and the degree to which faculty have the
3 opportunity to instruct and students have the opportunity to
4 learn in an environment conducive to the pursuit of knowledge
5 and truth at State-related and State-owned colleges and
6 universities and community colleges in this Commonwealth.
7 WHEREAS, Academic freedom and intellectual diversity are
8 values indispensable to the American colleges and universities;
9 and
10 WHEREAS, From its first formulation in the General Report of
11 the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American
12 Association of University Professors, the concept of academic
13 freedom has been premised on the idea that human knowledge is a
14 never-ending pursuit of the truth, that there is no humanly
15 accessible truth that is not, in principle, open to challenge,
16 and that no party or intellectual faction has a monopoly on
17 wisdom; and

– 1 –

1 WHEREAS, Academic freedom is likely to thrive in an
2 environment of intellectual diversity that protects and fosters
3 independence of thought and speech; and
4 WHEREAS, Students and faculty should be protected from the
5 imposition of ideological orthodoxy, and faculty members have
6 the responsibility to not take advantage of their authority
7 position to introduce inappropriate or irrelevant subject matter
8 outside their field of study; therefore be it
9 RESOLVED, That a select committee composed of the
10 Subcommittee on Higher Education of the Education Committee,
11 plus one member appointed by the Speaker of the House of
12 Representatives and one member appointed by the Minority Leader
13 of the House of Representatives, examine, study and inform the
14 House of Representatives on matters relating to the academic
15 the expression of independent thought at State-related and
19 State-owned colleges, universities and community colleges,
20 including, but not limited to, whether:
21 (1) faculty are hired, fired, promoted and granted
22 tenure based on their professional competence and subject
23 matter knowledge and with a view of helping students explore
24 and understand various methodologies and perspectives;
25 (2) students have an academic environment, quality life
26 on campus and reasonable access to course materials that
27 create an environment conducive to learning, the development
28 of critical thinking and the exploration and expression of
29 independent thought and that the students are evaluated based
30 on their subject knowledge; and

– 2 –

1 (3) that students are graded based on academic merit,
2 without regard for ideological views, and that academic
3 freedom and the right to explore and express independent
4 thought is available to and practiced freely by faculty and
5 students;
6 and be it further
7 RESOLVED, That the chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher
8 Education of the Education Committee of the House of
9 Representatives shall be chairman of the select committee, that
10 committee vacancies not affect the power of the remaining
11 members to execute committee functions and that committee
12 vacancies be filled in the same manner as the original
13 appointment; and be it further
14 RESOLVED, That the committee may hold hearings, take
15 testimony and conduct investigations within this Commonwealth as
16 necessary; and be it further
17 RESOLVED, THAT IF AN INDIVIDUAL MAKES AN ALLEGATION AGAINST A
18 FACULTY MEMBER CLAIMING BIAS, THE FACULTY MEMBER MUST BE GIVEN
19 AT LEAST 48 HOURS’ NOTICE OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE ALLEGATION
20 PRIOR TO THE TESTIMONY BEING GIVEN AND BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY
21 TO TESTIFY AT THE SAME HEARING AS THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING THE
22 ALLEGATION; AND BE IT FURTHER
23 RESOLVED, That the Chief Clerk, with the Speaker’s approval,
24 pay for the reasonable, appropriate and proper expenses incurred
25 by the committee; and be it further
26 RESOLVED, That the committee make a report of its findings
27 and any recommendations for remedial legislation and other
28 appropriate action by June 30, 2006, and that the committee may
29 extend the investigation for additional time, if necessary, but
30 no later than November 30, 2006.

Members of the Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education

Representative Thomas L. Stevenson, Chairman

Representative Lawrence H. Curry, Minority Chairman

Majority Members: Minority Members:

Rep. Gibson C. Armstrong Rep. Dan B. Frankel
Rep. Michael Diven Rep. Richard T. Grucela
Rep. Patrick E. Fleagle Rep. John E. Pallone
Rep. Lynn B. Herman Rep. Dan A. Surra
Rep. Beverly Mackereth Rep. John T. Yudichak
Rep. Bernard T. O’Neill
Rep. Thomas J. Quigley

Representative Jess M. Stairs, Chairman of the House Education Committee, and Representative James R. Roebuck Jr., Minority Chairman of the House Education Committee, are ex-officio members of the Select Committee.
PURPOSE

House Resolution 177 of 2006 created the Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education and required it to:

“…examine, study, and inform the House of Representatives on matters relating to the academic atmosphere and the degree to which faculty have the opportunity to instruct and students have the opportunity to learn in an environment conducive to the pursuit of knowledge and truth and the expression of independent thought at State-related and State-owned colleges, universities, and community colleges…” (Pg. 2, Lines 13-19)

This includes, but is not limited to whether:

o Faculty are hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure based on their professional competence and subject matter knowledge and with a view of helping students explore and understand various methodologies and perspectives:

o 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

o 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.

COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

HR 177 specified that the Select Committee would be comprised of the Members of the Sub-Committee on Higher Education of the House Education Committee, with the Chairman and Minority Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Higher Education acting in the same capacity on the Select Committee. In addition, one member of the Select Committee was appointed by the Speaker of the House and one member was appointed by the Minority Leader. Finally, the Chairman and Minority Chairman of the House Education Committee were included as ex-officio members of the Select Committee since they have ex-officio status on the Sub-Committee on Higher Education.

METHOD

In order to learn more about the existing policies at State-owned and State-related colleges and universities as well as community colleges, the Select Committee requested that each institution provide its policies regarding academic freedom; lodging, verification, and resolution of student complaints; a list of academic freedom complaints during the previous five years; and any actions taken to correct policies based on handling of prior complaints.

After receiving the requested information from each institution, the Select Committee staff reviewed and compiled the information for the Select Committee’s future use. The staff determined that a significant number of institutions had adopted faculty academic freedom policies, but not student academic freedom policies. Based on this discovery, the staff recommended meeting with each sector of higher education and interested parties in order to determine whether current academic freedom policies are effective and applicable to students.

Because of the Select Committee’s concern that “students and faculty should be protected from the imposition of ideological orthodoxy,” it first heard testimony in Harrisburg from attorney David French, then-executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, based in Philadelphia, and an expert on First Amendment rights as they affect academic freedom. French was asked to explain the concept of academic freedom and its relation to free speech.

Following the informational meeting, the Chairman and Minority Chairman of the Select Committee agreed to hold four public hearings at institutions throughout the Commonwealth. The meetings would focus on each sector of higher education as well as each region of the Commonwealth. For this reason, meetings were held in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Millersville, and Harrisburg. Specifically, the Committee heard testimony from the University of Pittsburgh, Penn State University, Temple University, Millersville University, The State System of Higher Education (SSHE), and the Pennsylvania Commission for Community Colleges (PACCC).

Throughout the four hearings, the Select Committee also heard testimony from interested faculty and research organizations, which included the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Federation of Teachers of Pennsylvania (AFT-PA), the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA), the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, United University Professionals (UUP), the National Association of Scholars (NAS), and the Intercollegiate Study Institute (ISI).

From September 19, 2005 through June 1, 2006, the Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education held hearings on the state of academic freedom in Pennsylvania’s public colleges and universities. An informational hearing was held at the State Capitol, and eight days of on-site public hearings were held at the University of Pittsburgh, Temple University, Millersville University and Harrisburg Area Community College.

Based on a review of previous actions taken, it appears that these were the first statewide public hearings on academic freedom in the nations’ history. However, this Select Committee is not the first Committee commissioned by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the purpose of studying academic freedom at a public institution of higher education. In fact, during the 1930’s the House created a five member Committee for the purpose of studying the status of academic freedom at the University of Pittsburgh (an excerpt from the article “University of Pittsburgh: Through One Hundred and Fifty Years” is attached in Appendix A).

Chairman Stevenson opened the first day of off-site hearings, at the University of Pittsburgh, by laying out clear and unambiguous guidelines describing the nature and limits of the Committee’s business. He stated that “[t]his Committee’s focus will be on the [academic] institutions and their policies, not on professors, not on students”

Over the course of eight months, which included nine full days of hearings, not a single professor was identified by name for complaint and not a single specific class was mentioned by any witness or committee member. The focus of the Select Committee remained “institutions and their policies.”

Chairman Stevenson further elaborated the Committee’s goals:

“We are here to really study and inform the full House on academic freedom issues and intellectual diversity issues at our universities and colleges across the Commonwealth. Academic freedom is likely to thrive in an atmosphere and an environment of intellectual diversity that fosters independent thought and speech.”

To further these goals, the Select Committee focused its attention on the following questions:

• What are the academic freedom policies at Pennsylvania’s public colleges and universities?
• Are they being enforced?
• What problems concerning academic freedom issues exist at Pennsylvania’s public colleges and universities?
• Are they being addressed?
• Are students aware of their academic freedom rights?
• Is there adequate grievance machinery in place to handle student complaints about academic freedom issues?
• What are the policies of Pennsylvania’s public colleges and universities on intellectual diversity?
• Are they being observed?
• What reforms of present university policies and procedures are recommended for strengthening the principles of academic freedom and intellectual diversity at Pennsylvania’s public colleges and universities?

The committee heard testimony from several students and faculty members at each of the four hearings. Additionally, during the public comment period provided at the end of each hearing day, the committee heard from students and faculty who were not included in the official meeting agenda.

FINDINGS

Based on testimony provided at the four public hearings, the Select Committee came to a general consensus that legislation requiring the adoption of a uniform statewide academic freedom policy, which was referenced by several testifiers, was not necessary. Instead, the Committee chose to focus on whether academic freedom violations were widespread at public institutions of higher education in Pennsylvania; student awareness of academic freedom policies; the effectiveness of existing policies including each student’s ability to file a grievance and obtain resolution; the balance of political views represented on university campuses; and the ability of colleges and universities to adapt these policies.

The Committee received testimony from each sector of public higher education and determined that academic freedom violations are rare. However, questions arose regarding students’ ability to report academic freedom violations when no specific academic freedom policy or grievance procedure is in place.

The Committee heard testimony from several institutions confirming that student awareness of academic freedom policies, and the grievance policies available to them, may be a concern.

Concerns regarding the effectiveness of academic freedom policies were raised during the four public hearings. However, at institutions with academic freedom policies in place, it appears the policies are effective at resolving disputes.
On the other hand, concerns were raised regarding the willingness of students to confront the professor they felt was in violation of the academic freedom policy. This concern stemmed from the common requirement that students must first report concerns to the professor, then the department head, then the dean and finally the president of the university until resolution occurs. Some students might feel uncomfortable with this process if they perceive such proceedings as affecting performance in future courses with the same professor. While such concerns could not be validated or disproved, some testifiers suggested that an alternative reporting system could encourage students who fear retribution to come forward, but is not likely to affect the integrity of the reporting process.

Additionally, the Committee heard a significant amount of testimony regarding the political atmosphere on college campuses. The testimony was in regard to several studies of the political affiliation and leanings of the professoriate and each study pointed to a greater representation of Democrats than Republicans in most fields of study. The Committee received mixed testimony as to whether such differences in representation create a detrimental campus atmosphere. While differences in overall faculty leanings are certainly acceptable, the Committee believes it may be detrimental to university education if faculties as a whole lean extremely toward one political viewpoint, regardless of which view that might be. That being said, it is not this Committee’s intent or purpose to place political quotas on universities or their faculties. For this reason, the Committee believes that our universities should evaluate whether internal efforts are necessary to encourage diverse political views on campus and to ensure that students receive a balanced and effective education.

Finally, the Committee looked at the ability and willingness of institutions to modify policies if the processing of academic freedom complaints could be improved. During the hearings, the Committee learned that many institutions have made modifications to academic freedom policies in the past. In fact, the Committee learned that Temple University and the Pennsylvania State University began making improvements to student grievance policies and procedures during the Select Committee hearing process. The Select Committee believes that the newly adopted policies may be useful to other institutions that wish to improve such policies. For this reason, each institution’s new policy has been included in Appendix C of this report. Additionally, the language of Pennsylvania State University’s HR 64, which is included on page 14 of this report, was recognized as a clear and concise faculty academic freedom policy. The Committee believes that this language could be used as an example by other institutions if they should find it necessary to create an effective academic freedom policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Public institutions of higher education within the Commonwealth should continue to review existing academic freedom policies and procedures to ensure that student rights and grievance procedures are detailed and readily available.

• Public institutions of higher education should make students aware of the availability of academic freedom policies and grievance procedures. This should be accomplished by providing such information during student orientation when other student rights policies and/or discrimination policies are discussed. Additionally, this information should be available in the “student” section of the institution’s website.

• In order to provide students who do not wish to complain directly to a professor with an alternative option, public institutions of higher education should allow students to file complaints with a university official outside of the student’s major. This could be best accomplished by utilizing an existing office that handles student diversity issues for the purpose of receiving and processing such complaints.

• Public institutions of higher education should review course evaluation forms, and amend them if necessary, to ensure that students may have the opportunity to share their concerns about any possible violations of the institution’s academic freedom policies.

• All public institutions of higher education should maintain a record of complaints filed under the institution’s academic freedom policy.

• All public institutions of higher education shall make a report of actions taken regarding the recommendations of this Select Committee to the Chairman and Minority Chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education of the House Education Committee no later than November 1, 2008.

APPENDIX A

Remarks of Select Committee Members

APPENDIX B

“University of Pittsburgh: Through One Hundred and Fifty Years”

APPENDIX C

New Pennsylvania State University and Temple University Academic Freedom Policies

Pennsylvania State University:

HR 64:

“The faculty member is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his/her subject. The faculty member is, however, responsible for the maintenance of appropriate standards of scholarship and teaching ability. It is not the function of a faculty member in a democracy to indoctrinate his/her students with ready-made conclusions on controversial subjects. The faculty member is expected to train students to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials which they need if they are to think intelligently. Hence in giving instruction upon controversial matters the faculty member is expected to be of a fair and judicial mind, and to set forth justly, without supersession or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators.

No faculty member may claim as a right the privilege of discussing in the classroom controversial topics outside his/her own field of study. The faculty member is normally bound not to take advantage of his/her position by introducing into the classroom provocative discussions of irrelevant subjects not within the field of his/her study. ”

Faculty Senate Policy 20-00:
“Students having concerns about situations that arise within the classroom, or concerns with instructor behavior in a course that violates University standards of classroom conduct as defined in Policy HR64 “Academic Freedom,” may seek resolution according to the recommended procedures established under Policy 20-00, Resolution of Classroom Problems.
In every case, student concerns arising from questions about classroom situations or behavior shall be resolved in a manner that provides for equity and due process for students and for instructors. Students may attempt to resolve classroom problems with assurance that confidentiality will be maintained as appropriate.”

Temple University:
Title: Student and Faculty Academic Rights and Responsibilities
Policy Number: 03.70.02
Effective Date: August 1, 2006
Issuing Authority: Board of Trustees

Preamble
As an academic institution, Temple University exists for the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals. As members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for truth.

Freedom to teach and freedom to learn are inseparable facets of academic freedom. The freedom to learn depends upon appropriate opportunities and conditions in the classroom, on the campus, and in the larger community. The University and the faculty have a responsibility to provide students with opportunities and protections that promote the learning process in all its aspects. Students similarly should exercise their freedom with responsibility.

Temple University therefore reaffirms its commitment to academic freedom, and adopts the following statement of academic freedom principles applicable to faculty and students:

Statement of Principles

1 Faculty are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial (or other) matter which has no relation to their subject. The faculty member is responsible, however, for maintaining academic standards in the presentation of course materials. [It is not the function of a faculty member in a democracy to indoctrinate his/her students with ready-made conclusions on controversial subjects. The faculty member is expected to train students to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials, which they need if they are to think intelligently. Hence, in giving instruction upon controversial matters the faculty member is expected to be of a fair and judicial mind, and to set forth justly, without super-cession or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators.]

2. As members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for the truth.

3. Faculty members in the classroom and in conference should encourage free discussion, inquiry and expression. Student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards.

4. Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the information or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion, but students are responsible for learning the content of the course of study in which they are enrolled. The validity of academic ideas, theories, arguments and views should be measured against the relevant academic standards.

5. Students should have protection through orderly grievance procedures against prejudiced or capricious evaluations that are not intellectually relevant to the subject matter under consideration. At the same time, students are responsible for complying with the standards of academic performance established for each course in which they are enrolled.

Student Grievance Procedure

Except in cases in which a student challenges a grade received in connection with a course, the following procedures shall apply when a student believes that a faculty member has infringed upon the student’s academic rights as set forth in this policy. In cases in which the student is challenging a grade in connection with a course, the student shall follow the grade appeal procedure applicable to the school or college in which the course is offered.
1. If a student grievance for an alleged violation of academic rights cannot be resolved between the faculty member and the student, or if the student does not feel comfortable in discussing the matter directly with the faculty member, the student may bring an informal complaint to the Student Ombudsperson of the school or college to try to effect an informal resolution.

2. If a resolution satisfactory to the student is not obtained through an informal mediation process with the Student Ombudsperson, the student may submit a formal, written grievance to the Dean or the Dean’s designee.

3. The Dean or the Dean’s designee may attempt informal resolution through discussion with the student and faculty member. If a mutually agreeable resolution is not achieved through informal discussion, the Dean shall refer the matter for consideration in accordance with the procedures for resolution of student grievances as set forth in the Bylaws of the school or college.

4. The Dean will consider the recommendation of the school or college’s student grievance committee and issue a written decision and remedy. Appropriate precautions should be developed to safeguard the confidentiality of the grievance proceedings, including information about the outcome.

5. Either party to a grievance may appeal the decision of the Dean to the Provost, in writing, within ten (10) days following notice of the Dean’s decision. A written reply by the other party must be filed within ten (10) days after receipt of the appeal. The Dean’s decision shall be held in abeyance pending appeal. The Provost has discretion to determine the information and procedure that he/she will utilize in deciding each appeal. The decision of the Provost shall be in writing and shall be final.

Recordkeeping and Reporting

The officers should develop mechanisms and procedures for developing and maintaining records in a confidential manner of all grievances brought pursuant to this policy. In addition, the officers shall provide a report on all grievances pursuant to this policy each semester to the Chairs of the Student Affairs and the Academic Affairs Committees of the
Board of Trustees, and establish a mechanism for annual reviews of this policy and its effectiveness by appropriate University officials and the Board of Trustees.

Effective Date
This policy shall become effective on August 1, 2006.

APPENDIX D

Meeting Agendas and Transcript Copy Information
Contact Information

For information regarding copies of transcripts, please contact:

Roger Nick, Chief Clerk
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
129 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2020
(717) 787-2372
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON STUDENT ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Pursuant to HR 177 of 2005

September 19, 2005
1:00 PM
Room 140, Main Capitol Building

AGENDA

1:00 PM-1:30 PM Presentation by David A. French, President The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

This presentation will provide members with an overview of the mission of FIRE and its Individual Rights Defense program. Additionally, the presentation will provide an explanation of the process of vetting complaints made by students and professors as well as the indicators of credible claims of academic rights violations.

1:30 PM-4:00 PM Questions from members of the Select Committee.

AGENDA

Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education
Public Hearings
November 9-10, 2005

William Pitt Union, Ballroom
5th Avenue and Bigelow Boulevard
Pittsburgh, PA
November 9, 2005

1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Presentation by Stephen H. Balch, President National Association of Scholars

3:00 pm – 3:30 pm Questions from Select Committee members

3:30 pm – 5:00 pm Joan Wallach Scott Professor of Social Sciences Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, NJ
Former chair, American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure

Robert Moore
Assistant Professor of Sociology
St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA
Former chair, AAUP Committee on Governance

5:00 pm – 5:30 pm Questions from Select Committee members

5:30 pm – 6:00 pm Public Comment

6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Dinner – exact time and location TBA

November 10, 2005

9:00 am – 10:00 am Presentation by James V. Maher, Provost The University of Pittsburgh

10:00 am – 10:30 am Questions from Select Committee members

10:30 – 11:30 am Burrell Brown, Chairperson and Professor
Department of Business and Economics
California University of Pennsylvania

11:30 am – 12:00 pm Public Comment
AGENDA

Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education
Public Hearings
January 9-10, 2006

Temple University Student Center, Rooms B and C
13th Street and Montgomery Avenue
Philadelphia, PA

January 9, 2006

1:00 pm – 1:45 pm Presentation by David Adamany, President
Temple University

1:45 pm – 3:15 pm Stephen C. Zelnick, Temple Faculty Member

3:15 pm – 3:45 pm Robert M. O’Neil, Founding Director The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression

3:45 pm – 4:15 pm Dr. Rachel DuPlessis, Temple Faculty Member

4:15 pm – 4:45 pm Jeff Solow reading the statement of Dr. Jane Evans, Temple Faculty Member

4:45 pm – 5:15 pm Logan Fisher, Temple Student

4:00 pm – 5:00 pm Public Comment

January 10, 2006

9:00 am – 10:00 am William E. Scheuerman, Ph.D., President United University Professions, SUNY

William W. Cutler III, Ph.D., Professor
History and Educational Policy Studies

10:00 am – 11:30 am Anne D. Neal, President American Council of Trustees and Alumni

11:30 am – 1:00 pm David Horowitz, President Center for the Study of Popular Culture

1:00 pm Public Comment

AGENDA

Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education

March 22-23, 2006

Millersville University
Matisse Room, Bolger Conference Center
1 South George Street
Millersville, PA 17551

March 22, 2006

12:00 – 12:30 Dr. Francine G. McNairy, President, Millersville University

12:30 – 2:00 Drs. Matthew and April Woessner Penn State Harrisburg, Regarding Group Dynamics

2:00 – 3:00 Terry Christopher, Millersville University Student

3:00 – 4:00 Dr. Nadine Bean, Professor, West Chester University

4:00 – 5:00 T. Kenneth Crib, Intercollegiate Study Institute (ISI), Regarding Bias in the Classroom

5:00 – 5:30 Dr. Frank Bremer, History Department Chair, Millersville University

5:30 – 6:00 Public Comment

March 23, 2006

9:00 – 10:00 Mark Bauerlein, Emory University, Regarding the Law of Group Polarization

10:00 – 11:00 Dr. Alan Levy, Professor, Slippery Rock University

11:00 – 12:00 Dr. Kurt Smith, Professor, Bloomsburg University

12:00 – 1:00 Tom Bradley, Professor, Shippensburg University

1:00 – 1:30 Public Comment

AGENDA
Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education
May 31, 2006-June 1, 2006

Harrisburg Area Community College
Rooms 155-156 C. Ted Lick Conference Center
1 HACC Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110

May 31, 2006

1:00 PM-1:05 PM Welcome- Harrisburg Area Community College (HACC)
David J. Morrison, Executive Assistant to the President

1:05 PM- 2:30 PM State System of Higher Education (SSHE)

Dr. Peter H. Garland, Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs

Dr. James Moran, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs

2:30 PM-4:00 PM Pennsylvania State University (PSU)

Blannie E. Bowen, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

4:00 PM-5:00 PM Public Comment

June 1, 2006

9:00 AM-10:00 AM Pennsylvania Commission for Community Colleges (PACCC)

Dr. Dustin Swanger, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Luzerne County Community College

Dr. John Flynn, Vice President of Academic Affairs and Provost, Montgomery County Community College

10:00 AM-11:00 AM Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA)

Kathy Sproles, President National Council for Higher Education (NEA)

Jane Munley, President Pennsylvania Association of Higher Education (PAHE)

Jessica Sabol, Student

11:00 AM-11:30 PM Dr. Ken Mash, Professor East Stroudsburg University

11:30 PM-12:30 PM Dr. David Saxe, Professor Pennsylvania State University Member, State Board of Education

12:30 PM-1:00 PM Public Comment

New Report Cites Penn State Courses for Violations of the University’s Own Academic Freedom Policy

January 24, 2007 by admin Leave a Comment

Dear Students and Supporters,

This past summer, two universities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Temple University and Pennsylvania State University, became the first in the nation to adopt policies specifically protecting students’ academic freedom and outlining grievance procedures to protect academic rights. Now, a disturbing report released this week by Students for Academic Freedom reveals that multiple departments at Penn State currently stand in stark violation of the university’s academic freedom policy by openly endorsing ideological positions in their course descriptions and requirements.

Our second national academic freedom conference which will take place March 3-4 in Washington, DC is fast approaching. Registration is FREE for students and only $150 for the general public. Space is limited so register today!

Read on for all the latest details on these exciting developments in the academic freedom campaign….

SAF Report Reveals Academic Freedom Violations in Penn State Curricula

In a report released Monday, Students for Academic Freedom identifies several academic departments at Pennsylvania State University which openly and regularly violate the academic freedom provisions of the university.

Authored by Students for Academic Freedom Chairman David Horowitz and Senior Editor Jacob Laksin, the report examines official class syllabi, departmental web pages, and course descriptions and singles out the Penn State Women’s Studies Department for failing to meet academic standards and being a program designed to indoctrinate students in a sectarian ideology.

The report reveals that despite Penn State’s longstanding and well-articulated academic freedom policy, HR 64, which forbids professors from indoctrinating students with “ready-made conclusions on controversial subjects,” numerous courses across several departments aim to do exactly that, discarding academic approaches in favor of political agendas.

“There is nothing ambiguous in [Penn State’s academic freedom policies],” the authors write. “They define the standards of professionalism that Penn State University professors are expected to observe. But examination of a dozen courses in the Penn State curriculum reveals that these principles are often blatantly ignored, and the professional standards they set forth are systematically violated.”

In a historic advance for academic freedom last spring, the faculty senate at Penn State created a new policy giving students the right to file a grievance if their professors violate their academic freedom as defined by the existing policy HR 64. This much needed change in policy was inspired by the academic freedom hearings conducted by a select committee of the Pennsylvania Legislature during 2005-2006. At the time of the hearings, not a single public university in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania provided student-specific academic freedom guarantees to its student body or provided students with a grievance procedure specifically to challenge such violations.

Following the hearings, Temple University and Penn State became the first campuses in the state to adopt new policies providing students with academic freedom rights.

Until now, “the Penn State administration has knowingly ignored these blatant violations of the university’s academic freedom policy, and turned a blind eye to the ramifications for the thousands of students under their charge,” commented David Horowitz. “Penn State should take immediate steps to ensure that all departments, courses, and instructors comply fully with the university’s stated academic freedom policy.”

A full-page ad taken out by Students for Academic Freedom in Wednesday’s edition of the Penn State Daily Collegian titled “Know Your Rights,” instructs students in how to file a grievance if their professors violate Penn State’s new academic freedom policy.

“If you are a student at Penn State, you pay good money for professional expertise, not off-the-cuff political advocacy,” states the ad. “It’s your education. See that you get one.”

Register for the Second Annual Academic Freedom Conference—FREE For Students!

Our second annual academic freedom conference is fast approaching. This exciting event will take place March 3-4 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference will feature many exciting speakers and events including a debate between SAF Chairman David Horowitz and American Association of University Professors President Cary Nelson on what is probably the most important campus issue of the day – students’ academic freedom.

The conference will also feature student and Marine corporal Matthew Sanchez who took on the issue of anti-military bias at Columbia University after he was harassed and called a “baby killer” by his fellow students for proudly serving in the Corps.

In an effort to make it possible for more students from across the nation to attend our event, we are holding this year’s conference directly following the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) which takes place each winter in Washington, DC. Conference registration is FREE FOR STUDENTS but space is limited so please register as soon as you know you will be able to attend. We also invite the general public to attend this event at the subsidized rate of $150.00.

The complete conference schedule and registration information can be found at: http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org/conference2007

We hope to see you at the conference!

Yours in Freedom,

Sara Dogan
National Campus Director
Students for Academic Freedom