The Standard of Professional Review - Essay Example

Paper In the CPM, answer the questions presented in Problem 8 in no more than two pages. please answer in 1/2 pages The first thing that the President of the university must do is review the professor's contract. Within that contract, there should be specific language that identifies what the standard of professional review is for a non-tenured professor. Additionally there may be some ambiguous terms which is probably why the professor is threatening to sue. Because this professor is not tenured, he does not have a property right and therefore cannot say that he has a legally conceivable violation of due process. Moreover, it can be reasonably argued that were a court to find that there is a right to due process, that it has been met. It has been met because the professor "has written the President requesting that he reject the department's and Dean's negative recommendations". The operative word in this case scenario is "recommendation". The university colleagues did not fire the professor. Rather they only recommended that the professor not receive tenure. Presumably, because this is a public university, there would be an established and published university policy that regulates academic freedom, tenure and due process. While this would seem like a broad stroke philosophy it must be detailed within the faculty and administrative guidelines or handbooks. In order to insure that students are able to advance in the knowledge and understanding of their fields, it is important that professors feel free to discuss issues without having worry about censure. Freedom of inquiry is achieved through research, discussion, and publication teaching, learning free from internal or external restraints that would unreasonably restrict their academic endeavors. Apparently the university policy is that these goals are reached through a multi disciplinary approach. Accordingly, if the professor is not willing to explore the the multidisciplinary approach then he is violating university policy. Conversely, the professor may argue that the university is not allowing him to discuss his own views and issues with his class. Ultimately, the professor was well aware of the terms of his contract when he entered into it, thus while he may think that this is a battle between "old school" and "new school", it will not pass muster in court. In conclusion, so long as the president of the university can make his decision based upon intelligent feedback and his own wisdom, he is not abusing his discretion. He is in fact working well within his own parameters and there should be no legal consequences, whatever decision he makes. The professor would be ill advised to commence proceedings based upon this fact pattern. Paper 2 In the CPM, read the case Urofsky v. Gilmore and answer Questions 2 and 3 2. The various opinions issued by the en banc court in Urofsky provide an instructive debate, and an interesting array of viewpoints, on academic freedom and professors' First Amendment free speech rights. Compare and contrast the various opinions. Which opinion, or parts of opinions, present(s) the soundest reasoning The most perceptive analysis The most constructive approach to the problem I think that the balancing test applied in this case is a good introduction to what should be regulated, but it is not complete. It is difficult to reach a decision which maintains the equality of rights but also reasonably and realistically applies how those rights are defended. It is true that university professors are employees and that the words they speak are spoken "on company time". The fact remains however that they fit into an entirely different category from their non-faculty state employees or actors in many material points. Firstly, they are wearing two hats in the scope of their employment. They are teaching but they are also contributing through their research. It is through their research that their students and consequently the university advance. Secondly, there is not handbook that exists explaining how they are to conduct their research without encroaching state policy. So much of a professors actions are discretionary. Third, the very nature of education on a university level necessarily requires intellectual exploration, curiosity and creativity. Oftentimes, this level of academia may create friction with the old established rules of days gone by. However, this is why first amendment rights are so cherished. Indeed the work of an academic has a tremendous impact on the public at large and as such requires protections. 3. Running through the opinions, explicitly and implicitly, is the recurring question of whether professors (or academics) at public institutions have - or should have - First Amendment free speech rights that are more expansive, or differently configured, than the free speech rights of other public employees. How do the various opinions answer this question (explicitly or implicitly) What do you think is the correct or preferable answer It is rather difficult to express an opinion that the reader may find as a more correct or preferable answer. Part of being a professor is not only the teaching component, but he consistent effort of obtaining scholarship which may find the professor delving into areas that are relevant but perhaps publicly distasteful. For example, look at pornography. There may be an art history professor pursuing the history of sado masochism in ancient greek art with his students or he may be working on a scholarly contribution to the university. Naturally, there would be research involved and that would likely include viewing pornography. Because the university is a state university, should that professor be censured I don't think so. Now compare that scenario to the local state parks director who is surfing the web simply because he is bored and finds himself on the same website. The intent behind each viewer is different and that is what should be paramount. I don't believe that anyone is entitled to First Amendment free speech rights that are more expansive. Rather I believe that the rights are differently configured as applied to the job description. Simply stated, it is not the right that is affected because everyone is entitled to it, but it is instead the application of that right which must be examined by courts when a state employee (on any level) attempts to invoke its' protections. Read More