What a load of rubbish. If we follow that line, academics would be free not to publish their research, not to participate in evaluations, not to set and mark examination papers, not to deliver lectures, etc.
 This is a total misconstruction of academic freedom. What 'academic freedom' means is that academics can say (and write) things that are unpalatable to their employers and more importantly, their funders including governments, without fear of losing their jobs. I have and do exploit this sort of academic freedom all the time.  I strongly support academics being required to contribute to their discipline and access to knowledge (and opinion). Otherwise why are they employed?  Arthur Sale University of Tasmania  -----Original Message----- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Krichel Sent: Friday, 6 February 2009 11:02 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Repositories: Institutional or Central ? [in French, from Rector's blog, U. Liège]   Arthur Sale writes  > I totally disagree that researchers should be free to deposit where they > will.   This one of the basic tennants of academic fredom. Instititutional  mandates reduce that freedom. That's why I, and many other  academics, oppose mandates.    Cheers,   Thomas Krichel                   http://openlib.org/home/krichel                                RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel                                               skype: thomaskrichel