Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Artifact c1 Edited Version
Artifact c1 Edited Version
Seattle University
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 2
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
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
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
decisions. The result is a dualistic source of authority between administrative and academic
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.
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
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
confuses the value of their academic freedom. In its definition, the AAUP allows too much
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
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
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
For example, political activity of faculty members with tenure should be readily included
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
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
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).
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.
place by the political elite of that era. Serious violations of basic academic freedom followed,
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
Following this period, investment from the AAUP to protect liberal faculty under
academic freedom became increasingly important as the Civil Rights Movement picked up
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 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
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
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
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 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
Liberal education searches for truth, and academic freedom allows institutions of higher
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
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
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
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
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
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
Recommendation One
Create and initiate clear policies and systems supporting a mutually agreed upon operational
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
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,
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
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
Recommendation Two
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
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
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
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
parts, providing increased debate and communication about issues of academic freedom is a
Recommendation Three
In a system of shared governance, increase the voice of contingent faculty in an effort to create
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
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
AAUP. (2014, August 06). Academic Freedom and Tenure: The University of Illinois at
Basu, K. (2012). AAUP censures 3 universities. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
universities
Levy,
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.
Flaherty, C. (2016). Missouri board votes to fire Melissa Click. The Chronicle of Higher
ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK 24
missouri-board-votes-fire-melissa-click-assistant-professor
Flaherty, C. (2016, May 19). A firing with consequences. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
academic-freedom-terminating-melissa-click
Franke, A. (2011, July). Academic Freedom Primer. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from
Ginsberg, B. (2012, May). Tenure and academic freedom: The beginning of the end. Academic
freedom-the-beginning-of-the-end/
Giroux, H. A. (2006). Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy.
College
Jaschik, S. (2006). Prior restraint on speech. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
Jaschik, S. (2008). Students fail and professor loses job. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
Jaschik, S. (2016). A beloved professor fired. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
demand-answers-dismissal-tenured-faculty-member
Kezar, A. , & Sam, C. (2014). Governance as a catalyst for policy change: Creating a contingent
Kolowich, S. (2016). Melissa Click, U. of Missouri professor who riled free-speech advocates,
is
http://chronicle. com/article/Melissa-Click-U-of-Missouri/235499?cid=rcsidebar
Logue, J. (2016). Journalism advisor under fire. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
northwest-college-retaliation
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
edu/login?url=
Retrieved from
com/docview/232309978?accountid=28598
Regional accreditation standards concerning academic freedom and the faculty role in
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
proquest. com/docview/1492440930?accountid=28598
Stripling, J. (2016). Inside how Missouris leadership scrambled to quell a campus crisis. The
Missouri-s/236208
Thomason, A. (2016). U. of Missouri rejects Melissa Clicks appeal of her firing. The
Chronicle
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
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-
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