Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 28

Running head: ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 1

Academic Freedom Under Attack

Mitchell Catalano, Kareen Kanjo, Matt Miller, Elizabeth Weaver

Seattle University
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 2

Academic Freedom Under Attack

This paper examines academic freedom as a foundation of U. S. higher education

currently under attack and explores subsequent impacts on students, faculty, and institutions.

First, it presents an overview of power structures in higher education and operationally defines

the concept of academic freedom. Historical background provides an overview of academic

freedom in times of McCarthyism, the Civil Rights Era, and the San Francisco State University

Black Studies movement. These sections seek to contextualize that threats to academic freedom

are not a new danger in higher education. Utilizing the firing of Dr. Melissa Click at the

University of Missouri as a current case study, this paper surveys the impacts of threatened

academic freedom, discusses implications for student affairs practice, and offers

recommendations for administrators and student affairs practitioners.

Academic Freedom: Operating within Shared Governance

Academic freedom must be understood within the overall power structure of a university.

According to Eckel and Kezar (2006), university governance systems operate under shared

governance. Academic decision making is guided by institutional policies and governance, and

reciprocally, bureaucratic governance responds to successful implementation of academic


ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 3

decisions. The result is a dualistic source of authority between administrative and academic

professionals on college campuses. This characteristic often causes conflict in a system of

shared governance, particularly concerning academic decision making. Rather than effective

solutions, many decisions are made out to be efficient, maintaining an imbalance of authority

(Eckel & Kezar, 2006). For professional faculty, academic freedom becomes a main source of

power for influencing decision making and upholding their institutional authority and value.

A distinct definition of academic freedom is difficult to outline, as the American

Association of University Professors (AAUP) regulations remain vague in their description.

Guiding principles of academic freedom are found in their 1940 Statement of Principles on

Academic Freedom and Tenure, outlined in three points. First, the full freedom of research and

publication that is subject to facultys adequate academic performance. Second, 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 (AAUP,

1970). Lastly, the statement refers to the facultys dual role as informed citizens and

representatives of a scholarly institution, describing that they should be free from institutional

censorship but must also uphold a special obligation to the community and ensure their views

do not become representative of their institution (AAUP, 1970).

Each of these principles represent contradictory stances of how academics can maintain

their scholarly freedom. Research and publication should not be restricted, but performance

evaluations may create restrictions in impact. Teachers should have control over what is learned

and how it is taught in the classroom, yet vaguely defined controversial matters are best left

unheard. Finally, a discrepancy between protection against institutional censorship while


ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 4

maintaining ongoing evaluations of faculty positions as teachers, researchers, and administrators

confuses the value of their academic freedom. In its definition, the AAUP allows too much

room for interpretation.

This incongruent definition is further problematized by the AAUPs historic inability to

support its meaning and importance. Schrecker (2014) indicates that multiple times throughout

history, the AAUP was unsuccessful in promoting its own protection of academic freedom. The

criticism of faculty in disagreement with the first World War went unregulated by the

organizations principles. Protecting the freedom of scholarship during McCarthyism was

equally mismanaged (Schrecker, 2014). The sort of political activity included in these historical

moments falls under the umbrella of each of the three core principles of academic freedom, but

problems with ensuring facultys freedom occurred due to inherent contradictions between the

principles.

Both historically and currently, the protection of academic freedom has been equally

connected to tenure. In the same 1940 statement, tenure is provided as that protection of office

after the completion of a probationary period of faculty employment. A professional cannot be

removed from this position until retirement, or under extraordinary financial exigencies

(AAUP, 1970). Necessarily, tenure is then tied to the protections inferred by the principles of

academic freedom and should strengthen them.

For example, political activity of faculty members with tenure should be readily included

in definitions of academic freedom. Realistically, protecting tenured faculty in politically

charged situations has not proceeded effectively according to AAUP policy. From faculty

appointments to classroom activities, many arenas of the university question the legitimacy of
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 5

tenure, and therefore academic freedom (Benjamin et. al, 2011). Relatedly, ONeil (2009)

discusses academic freedom as a canonical value in the role of faculty. Its importance grows

in consideration to how faculty are valued as equal citizens of any academic institution. Tying

this to the incongruent principles of academic freedom outlined by AAUP documentation, a key

operation of academic freedom is to endow faculty with equal rights and certain inalienable

responsibilities to the academic environment of higher education institutions.

Unfortunately, the misguided practice of this operation provides a lack of authority to

faculty stakeholders in shared governance. Their inability to act as equal citizens in institutional

decision making weakens the protections they are granted through academic freedom, impinging

upon their rights as leaders of teaching, research, and academic curriculum. The AAUP

idealizes the power granted by these rights. However the lack of authority in these definitions

questions the very stakeholders they are meant to protect.

Historical Perspectives on Academic Freedom

Certain historical moments and their consequences prove that challenging academic

freedom is not a new occurrence. The timeline spanning the age of McCarthyism through the

Civil Rights movements of the 1960s is categorized by a time of liberal academic activism

during which academic freedom often came under fire (Palfreyman, 2007; TShaka, 2012;

Williamson-Lot, 2013).

The era of McCarthyism as it connects to higher education was categorized by political

nonconformity and the fear of infiltration of communism and socialism into university settings

(Palfreyman, 2007). During this time, it was assumed that faculty who did not align themselves
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 6

with the witch hunt for hidden proponents of communism and socialism were ones themselves.

Subversive lessons heralding arguments for communism or socialism were assumed to be in

place by the political elite of that era. Serious violations of basic academic freedom followed,

characterized by unfounded assumptions of indoctrination, unjust dismissals, and even

imprisonment of some faculty members. Making matters worse, the AAUP only defended these

professionals after the witch hunts had been carried out (Schrecker, 2014). These unfair

consequences not only questioned faculty members equal citizenry at their institutions, but

additionally their citizenry as Americans. To no fault of their own, liberal faculty were stripped

of their rights as academic scholars and as equal members of American society.

Following this period, investment from the AAUP to protect liberal faculty under

academic freedom became increasingly important as the Civil Rights Movement picked up

momentum (Schrecker, 2014). In her review of political activity at southern institutions,

Williamson-Lott (2013) provides additional examples of infringements upon academic freedom.

Referencing these moments as, . . . the southern brand of academic McCarthyism, she frames

many of these violations as replacing integration for communism spurring a similar fear of

infiltration (Williamson-Lott, 2013).

During this time, one dean at the University of Southern Carolina was unduly fired for

comparing segregation to the actions of Adolf Hitler. Relatedly, Alabama Polytechnic Institute

professor Bud R. Hutchinson was fired for producing a letter to the school newspaper arguing

against racial injustices. Both were terminated under the conclusion that academic freedom did

not extend outside of the classroom (Williamson-Lott, 2013). Again, responses to these and

similar issues were brought to the attention of the AAUP who eventually censured certain
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 7

violating institutions, denouncing the unjust situation in the southern U. S. Similar to the era of

McCarthyism, liberal faculty were oppressed in their citizenry within the institution; this time, it

was as a consequence of misaligned shared governance at many Southern institutions during

segregation.

Similar racial injustices were occurring in San Francisco related to the movement for a

fully supplied Black/Ethnic studies department at San Francisco State University (SFSU). An

already long history of Black youth activism in the city led to the formation of the Black Student

Union (BSU) at SFSU. Recognizing the racism on their campus and that voices of the

oppressed were not heard in curriculum, the organization called for the introduction of a

Black/Ethnic studies department on campus. Students invited notable Black scholars to teach in

the department, but the administrative response to approving these positions and allowing for

non-conforming Black/Ethnic curriculum gave no credence either to the field of study or the

faculty meant to teach (TShaka, 2013). Despite the BSUs success in being awarded a Black

Studies Department with 12 new faculty and a separate Ethnic Studies Department, the process

steeped in latent racism demonstrated a less than equal value for both faculty and student

citizenry on that campus. Again, academic freedom was not upheld to its proper definition.

Stance: Academic Freedom under Attack

As in these historical examples, academic freedom continues to be under attack in current

U. S. institutions of higher education. Violations of academic freedom affect students, faculty,

and institutions alike. As witnessed in Professor Clicks case at the University of Missouri,

modern-day power shifts have taken rights away from individual professors and institutions and

instead placed decision-making power within external financial, political, and governmental
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 8

forces. Through the erosion of academic freedom, faculty lose autonomy, freedom of

expression, and their ability to carry out academic responsibilities. Challenges to academic

freedom also disrupt the balance of shared governance in higher education by diminishing

faculty power and increasing concentrations of power within levels of the administration. Most

alarmingly, diminishing academic freedom also jeopardizes the very foundations of higher

education: free inquiry, the exploration of knowledge, and contributions towards the public good.

Modern Case Study: University of Missouri

Recent events at the University of Missouri, a public four-year flagship institution also

known as Mizzou, provide a case study for examining how a universitys governance threatens

faculty academic freedom. In the fall of 2015, students at Mizzou spearheaded protests in

response to racial unrest, sparking the resignation of the university systems president and

Mizzous chancellor. At an on-campus demonstration in November, assistant professor of

communication Melissa Click was filmed requesting physical assistance with removing a student

journalist from the premises. Click, in an attempt to enforce the protests boundaries on the

campus lawn, caught significant media attention for her actions. Following this, Professor Click

issued an apology for her actions, though she was later charged with assault. Although she

pleaded not guilty to the assault charge, Professor Click was up against 117 lawmakers who

signed a letter in January 2016 demanding her resignation (Kolowich, 2016). The

communications department also reversed its decision to approve Professor Clicks bid for tenure

(Wilson, 2016). Despite university colleagues springing to her defense with a letter of support,

by February millions in threatened budget cuts from state lawmakers made the pressure too great

for the University of Missouri to defend Melissa Clicks employment status. In late February,
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 9

the University of Missouris Board of Curators terminated Click from the institution for her

actions during the campus demonstration. In a statement announcing the termination, the Board

of Curators explained that Dr. Click was not entitled to interfere with the rights of others, to

confront members of law enforcement, or to encourage potential physical intimidation against a

student (Kolowich, 2016).

In interviews following her controversial termination, Melissa Click clarified that her

involvement in the student demonstration stemmed from her desire to step in and assist black

students at the flagship campus. Clicks involvement with the racial unrest at Mizzou preceded

the physical altercation on the field. She had spontaneously linked arms with black students

blocking the presidents car at a homecoming parade in October and later attracted media

attention to the students camping in the quad the following month. Professor Click defends her

actions as being in accordance with her beliefs during the alleged assault. Both she and her

supporters cite academia as a space where community members should be able to follow their

conscience and stand up for others (Wilson, 2016). Because of power and influence belonging

to constituents outside of the institution, however, Professor Clicks freedom of expression was

censored by institutional funding concerns.

Reports allege that House Budget Committee member Tom Flannigan claimed that the

committee would seek to cut the Columbia campuss appropriations by the exact sum of the

salaries of Ms. Click, the chair of her department, and the dean of the College of Arts and

Science, along with another $7. 7 million in cuts from the Missouri system (Thomason, 2016).

In effect, legislative power and financial interests pressured the University of Missouri to strip

Professor Click of her position and reprimand her for exercising academic freedom. She was
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 10

silenced in response to her actions supporting the institutions value of respect for free and open

discourse (Univ. of Missouri, 2016). If faculty members cannot openly support student

movements such as Concerned Student 1950 at Mizzou, one must wonder whether or not

academia safeguards faculty expression. Whats more, the institutions sudden reversal of tenure

for Professor Click demonstrates another way the University of Missouri disrespected academic

freedom and due process. Although Professor Clicks petition for tenure had been unanimously

approved, her actions in support of racial equity on campus resulted in the institution revoking

this status, thereby demonstrating misalignment between academic freedom and the actions of

the Board of Curators. Chair of Missouris faculty council, Ben Trachtenberg, explained that

the curators uncharacteristically took a faculty personnel decision into their own hands

skirting the campuss formal procedures designed to weigh charges against professors while

preserving their rights to due process (Wilson, 2016). Circumventing institutional policies for

granting and removing faculty tenure censors faculty voices and ultimately infringes upon

academic freedom. The events at the University of Missouri echo past threats to academic

freedom, and, as in the case of Professor Click, faculty continue to face threats and repercussions

as they attempt to make their voices heard and speak as equal citizens in the university context.

Academic Freedom: Impact on Students

Several university constituencies experience the impacts of jeopardized academic

freedom. University students are key stakeholders and among those most affected. Students

may find that faculty without true academic freedom are fearful of openly criticizing institutional

or societal values. Higher education is a crucial opportunity for students to consider alternative

viewpoints and grow intellectually and morally (Williams, 2006), but faculty members may
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 11

hesitate to encourage students towards their full learning potential when it means questioning

authority and pushing existing boundaries. Depending upon the faculty members tenure status,

this educational restriction might show up differently across the institution. Non-tenure track

faculty do not receive the same protections as tenured faculty and may face dilemmas with

speaking and teaching freely (ONeil, 2009). If a non-tenure track faculty member teaches

curriculum that challenges the governing administration, for example, or models advocacy for

students, this may result in negative outcomes for the faculty member in tenure aspirations.

Contrary to the beliefs of many however, even faculty members with tenure may not possess true

academic freedom, as recent events have shown. As with Melissa Click and the University of

Missouri, tenure status does not protect all faculty members who model the values espoused by

an institution or a student body. While from one perspective Professor Clicks actions were

teaching students about solidarity, advocacy, and racial equity, the Board of Curators decided

instead that Professor Click no longer deserved tenure status and its afforded protections.

Modifications to tenure policies in the University of Wisconsin system present another

example of how tenure may fail to protect faculty in providing an education of value to students.

Because the systems Board of Regents desired greater flexibility to close academic programs in

response to budget concerns, the board approved new tenure policies that many view as

prioritizing economic factors over academic freedom (Flaherty, 2016). A group of students

protested the new changes, labeling the movement fake tenure, and the AAUP publically stated

that the systems change to tenure jeopardizes the working conditions of faculty. . . as well as

the learning conditions of students in the university. By weakening faculty tenure, the

University of Wisconsin system has also potentially weakened the breadth of student learning

experiences if the administration deems courses or subjects unnecessary and chooses to make
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 12

cuts during an academic review process. Unfortunately students lose educational opportunities

when their faculty members experience threats to academic freedom and greater censorship.

Academic Freedom: Impact on Faculty

Academic freedom allows faculty to express views and conduct research without fear of

professional repercussions and loss of job security. However, academic freedom has been

interpreted differently due to the broad definition provided by the AAUP (AAUP, 2013). The

vague wording of academic freedom has proven to be harmful to the world of academia. When

faculty cannot pursue certain areas of research or express their views freely, they are not

fulfilling their role as individuals in pursuit of academic truth (Regional Accreditation

Standards, n. d. ). If faculty are not free to push boundaries and question previously-held

truths, then knowledge cannot be expanded and the greater good of society ultimately suffers.

It is necessary for faculty to have a critical lens and the ability to question freely in order

to advance their disciplines. When faculty are denied the protection that academic freedom

affords, scholarship is harmed and the advancement of knowledge is curtailed. If faculty fear

their academic work may be seen as unfavorable to the institution, they may be less likely to

advance their work. If faculty fail to conduct research and push boundaries, they may be

unlikely to bring prestige to the institution and therefore less likely to gain bargaining power

within shared governance. ONeil et al. (2009) offer several recommendations for how

institutional policies should protect faculty academic freedom and include specific language that

expressly protect faculty participation in institutional governance as a dimension of academic

freedom, and clarify that faculty speech including but not limited to classroom teaching and
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 13

research and extramural utterances merits both constitutional and institutional protection (p.

65).

Examples of violations to the academic freedom of faculty members have been well-

documented (Basu, 2012; Jaschik, 2006; Jaschik, 2008; Jaschik, 2016; Logue, 2016; Williamson-

Lott, 2013). One such case took place at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, where

Professor Steven Salaitas appointment to tenure professor was rescinded after his extramural

comments on Twitter were brought to the attention of the Board of Trustees. The crux of the

case is an issue of shared governance, as the Chancellor refused to submit the recommendation to

the Board of Trustees that ultimately voted to rescind Salaitas letter of appointment. The

sequence of events calls into question whether the chancellor, the President, and the Board of

Trustees disregarded the due process of shared governance. During an examination into

Professor Salaitas case, the AAUP found that the administration of the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, in rejecting Professor

Steven Salaitas appointment without demonstrating cause, and in doing so only after the

appointment had been approved and courses had been assigned to him, acted in violation of the

1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and the universitys own stated

policies on the subject (2014, p. 13). Professor Salaitas case demonstrates the danger of

administrative failure to adhere to the principles of shared governance. It illustrates the impact

that occurs when a board of trustees disregards recommendations of faculty and demonstrates

that academic freedom is critical for faculty protection so they can speak out even with

unfavorable opinions.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 14

Threats to academic freedom may also impact the loss of tenure-track positions, and

without tenure, faculty are not guaranteed economic security. Ginsberg (2012) predicts that

without tenure positions, administrations will be free to interfere and influence the academic

realm of the institution. Without the protections of academic freedom, faculty serve at the

pleasure of the administration, which may not be in the best interest in the pursuit of knowledge

or student success (Jaschik, 2008). Faculty who are not protected by tenure and academic

freedom are less expensive teaching solutions for institutions. The danger for faculty who are

not protected is the perceived threat of administrations influence on curricula and inability of

faculty to teach freely. Ultimately, without tenure and academic freedom, faculty cannot teach

and speak freely without fear of retribution.

The case of Melissa Click directly relates to the violation of academic freedom and lack

of protection for faculty. Professor Clicks actions during the protest on campus were not

protected under academic freedom based upon the actions of Mizzou in the her termination.

Professors Click tenure was denied and she was fired due to her actions that were in support of

student equity at Mizzou (Wilson, 2016). Mizzous president and Board of Curators unilaterally

took action against Professor Click without consideration of institutional policies related to

shared governance (Kolowich, 2016). A report by AAUP found the Board of Curators violated

basic standards of academic due process and set a dangerous precedent that threatens. . . the

academic freedom of all faculty members (Flaherty, 2016, p. 1).

Academic Freedom: Impact on the Institution

Academic freedom also holds strong implications for institutions of higher education.

While often considered a right of individual scholars, academic freedom for institutions has been
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 15

upheld by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts (Rabban, 2001). In fact, academic

freedom is a core institutional principle essential to maintaining the structure and quality of

higher education. Dworkin (1996) refers to academic freedom as instrumental in the discovery

of truth (p. 11), and institutions must be independent and free from outside forces for this to

remain. Like freedom of speech and freedom of religion granted in the constitution, academic

freedom also protects against a culture of conformity (Dworkin, 1996, p. 12). Schrecker

(2012) similarly characterizes academic freedom as the only way to truly educate students and to

avoid simply training or indoctrinating them.

Liberal education searches for truth, and academic freedom allows institutions of higher

education to be safe havens in the midst of dissention or controversy. Subjects or disciplines

that may be politically contested such as religious, gender, labor, and Middle Eastern studies

have come under fire and need to be protected under academic freedom (Schrecker, 2012).

Within these and other disciplines, many topics that are viewed as political and divisive have also

been criticized by political media and advocacy groups. In a startling report about dwindling

freedoms in the academy, Cole (2005) reports that under conservative administrations

government agencies have tried to intimidate professors researching topics such as global

warming or HIV. Exerting its control and infringing on academic freedom, government forces

have also threatened to investigate professors work or withdraw federal grant dollars if specific

topics are researched. It is increasingly challenging to openly discuss many topics, and scholars

and scientists may sidestep these altogether in order to avoid being scorned or sanctioned (Cole,

2005). Indeed, the very nature of pedagogy as political, moral, and critical practice is at stake

(Giroux, 2006, p. 31). If faculty censor their research topics due to outside influence,
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 16

institutions suffer because forward-thinking research has the potential to bring recognition and

prestige to the institution.

Institutions are a major avenue for changing societal values and society as a whole

through inquiry, free expression, and pushing academic boundaries (Schrecker, 2012). The

moral and intellectual climate of higher education allows for considering societal decisions that

serve the greatest good for all people in current and future generations and contributes towards

a more humane society (Williams, 2006, p. 22). Without academic freedom and supported

free inquiry, creativity and innovation would inevitably decline. Cole (2005) summarizes that

academic freedom is necessary for new discoveries that advance medical, social, and economic

well-being. With the protections of academic freedom, institutions remain one of the few

sanctuaries where truth can be sought and new ideas achieved (Cole, 2005).

The case of Professor Melissa Click at Mizzou highlights the tenuous nature of academic

freedom and the impact on an institution. By not following due process in firing Professor

Click, the University of Missouri has spurred disagreement from faculty, the public, and the

AAUP. Inside Higher Ed reported that the AAUP has published a new investigative report

claiming that Mizzou violated academic freedom by dismissing Professor Click. As a result, the

AAUP may vote to censure the administration of the university. The AAUP report also

addresses increasing outside interference and questions the role the state Legislature played in

Dr. Clicks firing. Lawmakers seemed to take an immediate position against Dr. Click for not

only her role in student protests, but also for her controversial choices in curriculum. The fact

that Mizzou curators quickly bowed to outside influence and did not follow due process sets a

dangerous precedent for academic freedom (Flaherty, 2016). Additionally, with the resignations
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 17

of the president and chancellor, the expected freshman enrollment will be down 15 percent in fall

2016 (Wilson, 2016).

Conclusion

Historically, academic freedom has been under attack with examples dating back to

McCarthyism and the Civil Rights Era. The ongoing case of Professor Click at Mizzou

illustrates that battles over academic freedom continue to plague higher education. The

happenings at Mizzou challenge the tenets and practices of academic freedom and hold

consequences for not only faculty, but also students and the institution. While the details of

cases that question academic freedom may differ, these threats unquestioningly impact the

broader issue of shared governance within an institution. Just as the notion of academic

freedom impacts the faculty, students, and the institution as outlined above, it also impacts

student affairs practitioners.

Implications for Student Affairs

Although faculty and administrators exist as separate constituencies within traditional

higher education governance structures, threats to academic freedom arguably bear implications

for student affairs practice. Not protecting or supporting a non-tenured faculty members right

to freedom from censorship when speaking out about a critical campus issue lands the

responsibility for facilitating challenging conversations upon student affairs administrators.

This call to action presents its own challenges. Student affairs administrators do not necessarily

receive the same safeguards provided for tenured faculty when it comes to speaking on

controversial topics. Aside from tenured faculty, senior researchers, professional librarians,
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 18

counselors, and many others might conceivably face dilemmas comparable to those of the

outspoken professor, but they do so without the level of protection that academic freedom

uniquely affords the senior scholar and teacher (ONeil, 2009). Without the protections

afforded by academic freedom, student affairs practitioners run risks to professional stature and

livelihood when speaking out about controversial issues. If an institution censors non-tenured

faculty and in doing so places student affairs practitioners in aforementioned conflicts of interest,

these practitioners must consider how speaking out might negatively impact their careers.

Without a wider umbrella of protections under academic freedom to protect student affairs

practitioners and other constituencies in higher education, student affairs practitioners may have

much at risk.

Recommendations

Institutions of higher education must reconsider the value of academic freedom on

campus. Definitions set by the AAUP invite differing interpretations of academic freedom.

Both current and historical events demonstrate how readily interpreted operations of academic

freedom harm faculty, students, and the institution at large. This list of recommendations aims

to guide a more equitable operationalization of academic freedom by creating a mutually shared

and action-oriented understanding of the concept.

Recommendation One

Create and initiate clear policies and systems supporting a mutually agreed upon operational

definition of academic freedom for all university constituents


ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 19

Anne Franke, a former senior counsel for the AAUP, provides a legal overview of

academic freedom inclusive of recommendations about how to best apply the concept. One

states, Within a college or university, find and read the policies for faculty academic freedom. .

. and read the policies on student rights (Franke, 2011). Unfortunately, ongoing interpretations

of academic freedom illustrate that policies are not assumedly well known as this advice

provides. The dismissal of faculty like Dr. Melissa Click and Steven Salaita indicate that

power differentials in shared governance create different interpreted operations of academic

freedom. These largely ignore policies of academic freedom at their institutions (AAUP, 2014;

Kolowich, 2016). A major conclusion from each of these events is an ability to avoid drawing

from definitive policies of academic freedom in which considerations are made for faculty,

students, and the institution.

To limit this ability, institutions must better utilize systems of shared governance to

determine their specific policies and regulations. The pluralistic ideal of shared governance

infers equal consideration among the concerns of all institutional constituents. The power of

administrators, faculty, and students must be weighed equitably in determining definitive

principles for academic freedom. The end result is a concrete operationalization of academic

freedom that considers the institutional rights of various citizens on university campuses. This

strengthens currently vague definitions of academic freedom, limiting the ability of any one

constituency in interpreting how the concept should apply situationally.

Recommendation Two

Create clearer channels of communication across shared governance constituents


ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 20

To enact clearer policies and operations of academic freedom, shared governance systems

must support clear lines of communication. An AAUP policy report detailing college and

university government indicates five main methods of communication between faculty,

administration, and governing boards. Three of these stand out as key ways to enhance

communication specifically about the standing of academic freedom. These include joint ad hoc

committees, faculty membership on administrative bodies, and separately, faculty membership

on governing boards (AAUP, 2013a).

In its current state of attack, academic freedom has suffered because of a lack of proper

communication and agreement between shared governing bodies. For example, Professor

Salaitas offer of a tenured professorship was rescinded largely due to considerations of

administrators at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. These considerations were

markedly different from many perspectives of faculty on that campus who welcomed his free

speech and academic prestige (AAUP, 2014). Avoiding these discrepancies can be managed by

a committee formed of administrators and faculty members whose main purpose is to consider

these sorts of issues. If an ad hoc group is not a capability, then providing membership to

faculty on governing boards and administrative bodies provides a wider array of voices in

considering important cases of academic freedom. Taken either as a whole or in component

parts, providing increased debate and communication about issues of academic freedom is a

necessary step in supporting its clear operation on college campuses.

Recommendation Three

In a system of shared governance, increase the voice of contingent faculty in an effort to create

collective rather than individual agency in academic freedom


ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 21

Trends in faculty hiring have indicated that a growing number of non tenured faculty

have been flooding college campuses (Kezar & Sam, 2014). Their involvement in governance is

often taken more lightly than that of their tenured colleagues, creating a divide in faculty voice.

This often delegitimizes the professionalization of faculty, specifically those without tenure

(Kezar & Sam, 2014). As a result, many considerations of academic freedom on behalf of

faculty hold no collective force and, instead, are able to be adjudicated on a case by case basis.

Rather than continue these trends, it is important to recognize the opportunity for

institutional and positional change amongst faculty by breaking this dissention. Kezar and Sam

(2014) illustrate in their research that greater inclusion of contingent faculty can increase overall

knowledge of institutional functions and influence chances for all faculty to evolve their roles in

shared governance. This also designates more equal participation in shared governance for

faculty (Kezar & Sam, 2014). As faculty grow collectively in their roles and responsibilities,

their voice in communicating the operation of academic freedom on campus can become the

guiding principle in the policies considerations through a system of shared governance.

All three recommendations working as a whole create a systematic operation for

academic freedom. Adopted per environment at different institutions, these recommendations

will better protect academic freedom, ultimately reminding us of its important to all constituents

on university campuses.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 22

References

AAUP. (1970). 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure. AAUP Policy Documents

and Reports, 11th Ed. 13-19. Retrieved from

http://www. aaup. org/file/1940%20Statement. pdf

AAUP. (2014, August 06). Academic Freedom and Tenure: The University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www. aaup. org/report/UIUC

AAUP. (2013a). The Inclusion in Governance of Faculty Members Holding Contingent

Appointments. American Association of University Professors

http://www. aaup. org/file/contingent-inclusion-in-governance_0. pdf

AAUP. (2013b). Recommended institutional regulations on academic freedom and tenure.


ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 23

Academe, 99(4), 61-72. Retrieved from http://login. proxy. seattleu. edu/login?

url=http://search. proquest. com/docview/1435441715?accountid=28598

Basu, K. (2012). AAUP censures 3 universities. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www. insidehighered. com/news/2012/06/18/aaup-censures-three-louisiana-

universities

Benjamin, E. , Nails, D. , Schrecker, E. W. , Nelson, C. , Rabban, D. M. , Rhoades, G. D. , &

Levy,

A. (2011). Ensuring Academic Freedom in Politically Controversial Academic

Personnel Decisions. (August, 2011). Academe, 97, 88-115. Retrieved from

http://login. proxy. seattleu. edu/login?url=http://search. proquest.

com/docview/896358110?accountid=28598

Cole, J. R. (2005). The New McCarthyism. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 52(3), B7-B8.

Dworkin, R. (1996). We need a new interpretation of academic freedom. Academe, 82(3), 10-

15.

Eckel, P. , & Kezar, A. (2006). The Challenges Facing Academic Decision

Making:Contemporary Issues and Steadfast Structures. In P. Eckel (Ed. ), The Shifting

Frontiers of Academic Decision Making: Responding to New Priorities, Following New

Pathways (p. 2-14). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers

Flaherty, C. (2016). Missouri board votes to fire Melissa Click. The Chronicle of Higher
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 24

Education. Retrieved from https://www. insidehighered. com/news/2016/02/26/u-

missouri-board-votes-fire-melissa-click-assistant-professor

Flaherty, C. (2016, May 19). A firing with consequences. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www. insidehighered. com/news/2016/05/19/aaup-finds-missou-compromised-

academic-freedom-terminating-melissa-click

Franke, A. (2011, July). Academic Freedom Primer. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from

http://agb. org/sites/default/files/legacy/u1525/Academic Freedom Primer. pdf

Ginsberg, B. (2012, May). Tenure and academic freedom: The beginning of the end. Academic

Matters. Retrieved from http://www. academicmatters. ca/2012/05/tenure-and-academic-

freedom-the-beginning-of-the-end/

Giroux, H. A. (2006). Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy.

College

Literature, 33(4), 1-42.

Jaschik, S. (2006). Prior restraint on speech. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www. insidehighered. com/news/2006/07/26/fredonia

Jaschik, S. (2008). Students fail and professor loses job. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www. insidehighered. com/news/2008/05/14/aird


ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 25

Jaschik, S. (2016). A beloved professor fired. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www. insidehighered. com/news/2016/05/09/students-and-alumni-william-carey-

demand-answers-dismissal-tenured-faculty-member

Kezar, A. , & Sam, C. (2014). Governance as a catalyst for policy change: Creating a contingent

faculty. Educational Policy, 28(3), 425-462

Kolowich, S. (2016). Melissa Click, U. of Missouri professor who riled free-speech advocates,

is

fired. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle. com/article/Melissa-Click-U-of-Missouri/235499?cid=rcsidebar

Logue, J. (2016). Journalism advisor under fire. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www. insidehighered. com/news/2016/04/22/journalism-instructor-accuses-

northwest-college-retaliation

O'Neil, R. M. (2009). Academic freedom as a canonical value. Social Research, 76(2),

437-450.

O'Neil, R. ,M. , Areen, J. C. , Finkin, M. W. , Gerber, L. G. , Van Alstyne, W. ,W. , & Nelson,

C.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 26

(2009). Protecting an independent faculty voice: Academic freedom after Garcetti v.

Ceballos. . Academe, 95(6), 67-88. Retrieved from http://login. proxy. seattleu.

edu/login?url=

http://search. proquest. com/docview/232309182?accountid=28598

Palfreyman, D. (2007). Is academic freedom under threat in UK and US higher education?.

Education & The Law, 19(1), 19-40. doi:10. 1080/09539960701231207

Rabban, D. M. (2001). Academic freedom, individual or institutional? Academe, 87(6), 16-20.

Retrieved from

http://login. proxy. seattleu. edu/login?url=http://search. proquest.

com/docview/232309978?accountid=28598

Regional accreditation standards concerning academic freedom and the faculty role in

governance. (n. d. ). American Association of University Professors. Retrieved from

http://www. aaup. org/AAUP/comm/rep/acredacafree. htm#b11

Schrecker, E. (2012). Academic Freedom in the Corporate University. Radical Teacher, (93),

38-45.

Schrecker, E. (2014). One historian's perspective on academic freedom and the AAUP.

Academe,
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 27

100(1), 30-34. Retrieved from http://login. proxy. seattleu. edu/login?url=http://search.

proquest. com/docview/1492440930?accountid=28598

Stripling, J. (2016). Inside how Missouris leadership scrambled to quell a campus crisis. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle. com/article/Inside-How-

Missouri-s/236208

Thomason, A. (2016). U. of Missouri rejects Melissa Clicks appeal of her firing. The

Chronicle

of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle. com/blogs/ticker/u-of-missouri-

rejects-melissa-clicks-appeal-of-her-firing/109474

T'Shaka, Oba (2012). "Africana studies department history: San Francisco State University. "

Journal of Pan African Studies, 5(7) (2012): 13+. Literature Resource Center.

Univ. of Missouri (2016). Statement of values. Mizzou: University of Missouri. Retrieved from

http://missouri. edu/about/statement-of-values. php

Williams, R. (2006). Academic Freedom in Higher Education Within a Conservative

Sociopolitical Culture. Innovative Higher Education, 31(1), 5-25.

doi:10. 1007/s10755-006-9005-9

Williamson-Lott, J. (2013). The battle over power, control, and academic freedom at southern
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 28

institutions of higher education, 1955-1965. The Journal of Southern History, 79(4), 879-

920. Retrieved from http://login. proxy. seattleu. edu/login?url=http://search. proquest.

com

/docview/1459681423?accountid=28598

Wilson, R. (2016). Being Melissa Click. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle. com/article/Being-Melissa-Click/236226

You might also like