At 10:04 AM -0700 7/25/06, Rob Weisskirch wrote:
TIPSfolk,
Thanks for directing me to this article on academic freedom (thanks, Miguel). Generally, I like Stanley Fish's columns when they appear in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. However, I can't help but think that Fish's conservatism has now overtaken him.
Academic Freedom is exactly that--the ability to say and study whatever is desired without interference from outside sources. Taking an unpopular view is exactly in the sights of academic freedom. However, I don't think someone can discuss
academic freedom without talking about political correctness at the same time. The question is: Are some subjects avoided because of the nature of the topic?
One usually adds the qualification "within one's field of
competence".
When a physicist talks about politics that is not covered by
academic freedom.
Too few of us in academe have grown fearful of speaking out--mostly, I believe because pusillanimous administrators who will sacrifice one professor over public image.
Recently, our campus invited the venerable David Horowitz to our tiny campus (Mr. Student Bill of Rights). The sparsely attended event did, however, make me think. Is it wrong to tell one side? Or, to give a minority view? To counter popular
wisdom? You can read about this event in http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23357. It's sad to me that students lack the intellectual wherewithal to compose a counter argument.
From a recent mailing by Horowitz's organization (out of
curiosity I signed up for their local mailing list in case they become
active on my campus):
=========================================================
Letter from the National Campus Director
Temple University Trustees Adopt Policy on Students' Academic
Rights
July 24, 2006
July 24, 2006
Dear Students and Supporters,
Temple University has become the first university in America to
adopt an academic freedom policy which specifically addresses student
rights and not just faculty privileges; protects students from
ideological abuses in the classroom; and provides a grievance
machinery to handle violations of students academic freedom.
This breakthrough can become a powerful weapon in building the
student movement for academic freedom which has seized the
imaginations of college students across the country. In a referendum
this spring, the student body of Princeton University voted for a
student academic bill of rights. Both these events present a
tremendous opportunity for us to win hearts and minds among students
all across the country and to challenge the political abuse of
university classrooms by academic radicals.
Titled Student and Faculty Academic Rights and
Responsibilities, the new Temple policy will take effect on August
1 of this year. It reflects the concerns and recommendations of
Students for Academic Freedom, which has promoted David Horowitzs
proposal for an Academic Bill of Rights, and which played an important
role in the academic freedom hearings of the Pennsylvania House, which
were held at Temple on January 9 and 10 of this year.
The policy emphasizes that students as well as professors are
entitled to academic freedom: 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.
Equally important is a provision creating grievance machinery for
students whose rights have been infringed. The policy specifies that
this new grievance procedure is distinct from existing policies for
handling grading disputes, and specifically addresses the students
right to learn, free from political harassment and indoctrination. It
outlines a procedure whereby a student can take a series of informal
and then formal steps to challenge violations of academic freedom
within the administration hierarchy.
In a passage largely based on the American Association of
University Professors 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic
Freedom and Academic Tenure and the current Temple academic freedom
policy outlines both the privileges and obligations that academic
freedom demands of faculty in the classroom:
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.
The policy further provides for a reporting system that includes
the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees.
Unlike the existing academic freedom policies at Temple, the new
policy will be included in the university catalogue that is
distributed to all students. It has already been posted in the
Policies and Procedures section of the university website so that all
students will be made aware of their rights. This has been a prominent
demand of the academic freedom campaign.
The policy can be found here: http://policies.temple.edu/getdoc.asp?policy_no=03.70.02
--
* PAUL K.
BRANDON
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department 507-389-6217 *
* Psychology Department 507-389-6217 *
* 23 Armstrong
Hall Minnesota State University, Mankato
*
*
http://krypton.mnsu.edu/%7Epkbrando/
*
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
