Protecting and Promoting Academic Freedom for Faculty and Students - Term Paper Example

ACADEMIC FREEDOM Task: Academic Freedom Academic freedom is the apparent belief that the of freedom of inquest by affiliation faculty members and the students is pertinent to the realization of the mission, purpose and vision of the educational institution. It also spells that the students or the member scholars ought to have freedom of teaching and communication of facts or notions without posing as potential targets for job loss, repression and possible incarceration (Silver, 2001). Academic freedom poses as an overtly contentious issue with apparent drawbacks in actual practice. In accordance with the US 1940 statement regarding academic freedom, lecturers ought to be categorically careful to avoid, in their capacity, controversial or contending matters that are unrelated to this practice. These teachers have full freedom to write and talk in the public and put their opinions forward without institutional fears of discipline and censorship (Provenzo, 2010). However, they ought to indicate restraint that they are not all representing their educational institution in any way whatsoever. In addition, academic occupancy protects this kind of freedom through ensuring that all teachers can only be sacked for grave reasons of gross misdemeanours and conduct drawbacks (Walvoord, 2010). This can also apply in the case of incompetence in professional occupancy. Additionally, behaviours that underplay professional respect and those that induce condemnation from the general virtual academic community may be punished. Rationale Proponents that side with academic freedom purport that the apparent freedom to enquire by scholars and educational affiliation members is overtly pertinent to the realization of the vision and the general mission of the academy. Additionally, the argue that most academic societies are occasionally targeted for alleged repression due to their apparent capability to control, influence and shape the resultant flow of information in the society (West, 2008). As potential scholars try their best to extend and communicate their notions and purported truths that are apparently non-convenient to most political dispensations and authorities, they may get into risk of repression or vilification, imprisonment and possible loss of jobs. For instance, a North African professor lost his employment after discovering and addressing the fact that his nation’s infant death rate was actually higher than the government’s records (Assefa, 2008). Moreover, the contemporary society scholars have come to form a world affiliation, dubbed academic for the academic freedom, staged in the UK that has drafted principles regarding academic freedom. They stipulate that academics inside and outside class possesses liberty to categorically question and gauge perceived wisdom and to express controversial opinions that are purported offensive or non-offensive (Siegel & Knapp, 2009). Moreover, the body further stipulates that virtually all institutions have no right, whatsoever; to avoid the apparent exercise of these stipulated rights and freedoms of its constituent members of staff, to apply it for any kind of grounds for dismissal and discipline (Smart, 2001). In addition, AFAF and its campaigner’s purport that it is pertinent for academicians freely to express their notions put them to further scrutiny and debating by the concerned. Additionally, they are firmly against platonic and noble lying by politicians and the government. They also stipulate that people ought to have the freedom to express their radical views (Margesson, 2008). Academic freedom for professors The view of academic freedom for faculty members as a potential right has been established in most systems, legal ones, in most countries in the world. Apart from the US, where this freedom is a derivative of the guarantee of gratis speech within the first amendment, the constitutions of other diverse nations from all over the universe grant a different right and freedom to research, free learning and teaching. Below is a brief expansion of the state of academics in various nations (Kille, 2004). In the French dispensation, researchers’ centred in the public universities’ laboratories ought to behave neutrally and never to favour any given religious or political viewpoints in their duty dispensations, as they are recognized civil servants. The academic freedom of professors in the public universities and colleges is a basic principle that the laws of the republic recognize with weightiness. This is as defined by the council of the constitution (Alexander & Alexander, 2005). Furthermore, the law, statute law, stipulates regarding elevated education that the researchers or teachers ought to be completely independent and respective of the freedom to deliver speech in the process of their research activities and procedures, with the mandatory provision and requirement to respect principles of objectivity, tolerance and university codes of tradition and dispositions (Schwartz, 2006). Thus, promotion and respective nominations of the teachers is respected and carried out through a peer-review procedure rather than administrative considerations. The German constitution respects teaching and learning, generally, academic freedom for scholars, researchers or professors in colleges and universities. With respect to this, a court judge in a certain district stipulated that there exists no constitutional statute against academic freedom prohibit university or college officials from altering a grade assigned by a lecturer to a student. This court distinguished this case when a university institution purportedly coerced a lecturer to alter the grade of a given student, a violation of the 1st amendment, where professors or lecturers may alter the grade of an appealing student. This marked as a major precedent in the world of academic freedom. Relation to the freedom of speech Freedom of speech rights and prerogatives and those of academic freedom do not co-extend, though; this largely accepted view has received numerous challenges by institutional perspectives of the 1st amendment. Academic freedom constitutes or comprises more rights to free delivery of speech, for instance, including the right of determination of the things that lecturers teach in their classes. Practically, academic freedom has severe protection by the institutional stipulations and regulations, affiliation handbooks, academic tradition, appointment letters and agreements comprising bargains. For instance, in the US, the freedom and right to delivery of free speech is credited by the 1st amendments, which stipulates that the congress has no right to craft any law that derides the freedom of speech or the respective press. Through extension, the 1st amendment of the US constitution applies virtually to all academic institutions in the world, inclusive of all public universities and all governmental affiliations. Apparently, the supreme court of the US stipulates and purports that academic freedom is a respected 1st amendment freedom and right at all existing public institutions. However, the amendment has received numerous criticisms that it does not pose as an appropriate application to privatised affiliations such as religious institutions. However, it is apparent that these private institutions ought to honour and duly respect academic and speech freedom at discretion. Academic freedom for universities and colleges A feature that is apparently prominent in the English university faculties is the provision of freedoms and rights to appoint favourable faculty members and admit students of choice to these institutions. Ideally, this feature may be described as faculty autonomy and which is distinct from the freedom that the institution grants to its faculty members and students in general (Cohen & Kisker, 2009). According to the US Supreme Court, academic freedom stipulates that a university faculty have the powers to determine the persons taught teaching, mode of teaching and the admitted members on its own discretion on viable and understandable academic grounds. For instance, a US federal court in Virginia handled a case it stipulated eventually that, no professor bears academic freedom, but it resides on the institution itself. Criticism surrounding academic freedom Supporters of a new intelligent design that relates to academic freedom stipulate that these academic institutions have to identify the need to represent apparently all explanations, in their capacity, for the biodiversity observed on the planet. They seek legal sanctification from the injustices that are discriminatory of the scholars and members of the faculty who are critics of the evolutionary theory. Critics that are against this design categorically, claim the intelligent design has a religious motivation and drive behind it to be allowed into the US educational curriculum, with the notion that it is derogative and apparently, overtly misleading and of a divergent view that disregards evolution. These critics, additionally, dismisses discrimination allegations against the proponents of the intelligent design coupled with the freedom of academics. This is a fraction of the criticisms that exist, with regard to the academic freedom (Kinser & Forest, 2002). Additionally, critical threats to academic freedom emanate from mostly, wealthy benefactors, governments and religious bodies. Academic administrators and administrative boards have recently transmitted such potential threats. The most potential of these threats include loss of employment for the professors and lecturers and possible incarceration by the authorities. The controversial issue regarding individual disloyalty of a lecturer to the head of an affiliation has been rampant. Additionally, students who are unwilling to bear methodological and ideological diversity may pose as a potential threat to general academic freedom. Ideal versus the real Apparently, most individuals confuse academic freedom with autonomy, speech and thought free from all constraints. However, academic freedom states that it is not only being free from constraints but also freedom for scholars and faculty members to operate effectively within the scholarly society in order to develop personal and intellectual virtues that citizens in a vivacious democracy and an affluent economy ought to possess. The society protects this freedom such that the scholars and faculty can utilize it for the purpose of promotion of the common good (Gerstmann & Streb, 2006). Amid historic conceptions and perceptions surrounding academic freedom, this document articulates and extends precepts to comprise of responsibilities for the general holistic education for the scholars (Weissberg, 2000). Really, practice for these norms diminishes in the real society, a truth that proves that most affiliations do not obviously establish perfectly aligned objectives and goals for learning. Most of these goals may drift away from the intended plans and adequate evaluations may be evident. Most departments, however, do not ensure that their curricula encompass the complete diversity of intellectual and overtly legitimate perspectives that are essential for learning. The next section expounds on the necessary adjustments that universities and other educational institutions can make in order to realize respect for academic presently and in the future. What is the role of universities in protecting and promoting freedom for faculty and students? All universities and higher educational institutions ought to inculcate measures that aim at upholding and appreciating the academic freedom of scholars, students and lecturers in their institutions (Nelson, 2010). This ensures that most of the drawbacks related to purported disloyalty after expressing their opinions and notions to the public or the government. Various mechanisms are pertinent to ensuring respect for academic freedom for members. Individual members of the faculty should have the freedom to set their work direction and content without any interference (ALA, 2010). This control induces a sense of belongingness and appreciation of individual freedom to the lecturers and professor causing them to deliver their teaching services to the students, general public and other scholars. However, these freedoms ought to be moderated and not overridden whatsoever. Independence and freedom of the students to work closely with other like-minded professors and lecturers to explore newer approaches and perspectives to working and operations regarding education and intelligence promotion would enable the entire faculty and overtly, the entire university institution to build confidence and foster distinctive and intellectual approaches to work that involves multiple disciplines. Essentially, most of the values of the universities concerned with academic freedom promotion and the imperatives if educational and intellectual development ought to be at the foremost in all critical decisions that surround the administrative and academic leaders. This practice builds a firm foundation and basis for the effective working of the academic administrators, fostering massive and positive growth of the institutions in numerous perspectives (Pavlich & Sharon, 2000). Most of the institutions ought to rely on tough faculty government systems and efficient channels for affiliation faculty directives to overtly commendable decisions that give shape to the academic enterprises concerned. A strong and profound model f directed authority that respects and fosters the above recommendable academic principles would be equally pertinent to ensure academic freedom and success (Docherty, 2008). To ensure satisfaction by all the stakeholders, scholars, public, students and lectures in the university, all decisions that are made ought to be made subject to ideas, proposals and feedback from the specified persons. These activities include hiring and development projects among others. Members of the faculty ought to give their viewpoints and have them considered, with the other stakeholders taking an active role in decanal recommendation. Proposals for new programs also ought to earn consideration from the highest council before approval. The council ought to make decisions that all members of the institutions approve. All this induces academic freedom for all (Fish, 2012). References Docherty, T. (2008). The English Question, Or Academic Freedoms. Portland, OR: Sussex Academic Press. American Library Association. (2010). Intellectual Freedom Manual. Chicago, IL: ALA Editions. Smart, J. (2001). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Volume 16. Bronx, NY: Springer. Weissberg, R. (2000). Democracy and the Academy. Huntington, NY: Nova Publishers. Cohen, A. M., & Kisker, C. B. (2009). The shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons Publishers. Fish, S. (2012). Save the World On Your Own Time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kinser, K. & Forest, J. F. (2002). Higher Education in the United States : A-L. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Provenzo, E. (2010). The Social Frontier: A Critical Reader. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Schwartz, E. (2006). American Students Organize: Founding the National Student Association After World War II : an Anthology and Sourcebook. Ann Arbor, MI: American Students Organize. Alexander, M. D. & Alexander, K. (2005). American Public School Law. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Walvoord, B. E. (2010). Assessment Clear and Simple: A Practical Guide for Institutions, Departments, and General Education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Silver, I. (2001). Public Employee Discharge and Discipline, Volume 2. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers Online. Siegel, D. J. & Knapp, J. C. (2009). The Business of Higher Education: Leadership and culture, Volume 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. West, R. R. (2008). An Analysis of Faculty Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Academic Freedom. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest. Margesson, R. J. (2008). A Rhetorical History of Academic Freedom from 1900 to 2006. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest. Pavlich, D. J. & Sharon, E. K. (2000). Academic Freedom and the Inclusive University. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Assefa, T. (2008). Academic Freedom in Ethiopia: Perspectives of Teaching Personnel. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: African Books Collective. Nelson, C. (2010). No University Is an Island: Saving Academic Freedom. New York, NY: NYU Press. Kille, J. D. (2004). Academic Freedom Imperiled: The Mccarthy Era At The University Of Nevada. Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada Press. Gerstmann, E. & Streb, M. J. (2006). Academic Freedom at the Dawn of a New Century: How Terrorism, Governments, And Culture Wars Impact Free Speech. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Read More