Academic freedom

Academic freedom is the conviction that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment.

Academic freedom is a contested issue and, therefore, has limitations in practice. In the United States, for example, according to the widely recognized "1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure" of the American Association of University Professors, teachers should be careful to avoid controversial matter that is unrelated to the subject. When they speak or write in public, they are free to express their opinions without fear from institutional censorship or discipline, but they should show restraint and clearly indicate that they are not speaking for their institution.[1] Academic tenure protects academic freedom by ensuring that teachers can be fired only for causes such as gross professional incompetence or behavior that evokes condemnation from the academic community itself.[2]

Historical background

Michael Polanyi argued that academic freedom was a fundamental necessity for the production of true knowledge.

Although the notion of academic freedom has a long implicit history, the idea was first clearly formulated in response to the encroachments of the totalitarian state on science and academia in general for the furtherance of its own goals. For instance, in the Soviet Union, scientific research was brought under strict political control in the 1930s. A number of research areas were declared "bourgeois pseudoscience" and forbidden, notably genetics[3] (see "Lysenkoism"). The trend toward subjugating science to the interests of the state also had proponents in the West, including the influential Marxist John Desmond Bernal, who published The Social Function of Science in 1939.

In contrast to this approach, Michael Polanyi argued that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science – that the freedom to pursue science for its own sake is a prerequisite for the production of knowledge through peer review and the scientific method.[4]

In 1936, as a consequence of an invitation to give lectures for the Ministry of Heavy Industry in the USSR, Polanyi met Bukharin, who told him that in socialist societies all scientific research is directed to accord with the needs of the latest five-year plan. Demands in Britain for centrally planned scientific research led Polanyi, together with John Baker, to found the influential Society for Freedom in Science.[5] The Society promoted a liberal conception of science as free enquiry against the instrumental view that science should exist primarily to serve the needs of society.[6]

In a series of articles, re-published in The Contempt of Freedom (1940) and The Logic of Liberty (1951), Polanyi claimed that co-operation amongst scientists is analogous to the way in which agents co-ordinate themselves within a free market. Just as consumers in a free market determine the value of products, science is a spontaneous order that arises as a consequence of open debate amongst specialists. Science can therefore only flourish when scientists have the liberty to pursue truth as an end in itself:

[S]cientists, freely making their own choice of problems and pursuing them in the light of their own personal judgment, are in fact co-operating as members of a closely knit organization.

Such self-co-ordination of independent initiatives leads to a joint result which is unpremeditated by any of those who bring it about.

Any attempt to organize the group ... under a single authority would eliminate their independent initiatives, and thus reduce their joint effectiveness to that of the single person directing them from the centre. It would, in effect, paralyse their co-operation.

Rationale

Proponents of academic freedom believe that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy. They argue that academic communities are repeatedly targeted for repression due to their ability to shape and control the flow of information. When scholars attempt to teach or communicate ideas or facts that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities, they may find themselves targeted for public vilification, job loss, imprisonment, or even death. For example, in North Africa, a professor of public health discovered that his country's infant mortality rate was higher than government figures indicated. He lost his job and was imprisoned.[7][8]

The fate of biology in the Soviet Union is also cited as a reason why society has an interest in protecting academic freedom. A Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko rejected Western science – then focused primarily on making advances in theoretical genetics, based on research with the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) – and proposed a more socially relevant approach to farming that was based on the collectivist principles of dialectical materialism. (Lysenko called this "Michurinism", but it is more popularly known today as Lysenkoism.) Lysenko's ideas proved appealing to the Soviet leadership, in part because of their value as propaganda, and he was ultimately made director of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Subsequently, Lysenko directed a purge of scientists who professed "harmful ideas", resulting in the expulsion, imprisonment, or death of hundreds of Soviet scientists. Lysenko's ideas were then implemented on collectivised farms in the Soviet Union and China. Famines that resulted partly from Lysenko's influence are believed to have killed 30 million people in China alone.[9]

AFAF (Academics For Academic Freedom) of the United Kingdom[10] is a campaign for lecturers, academic staff and researchers who want to make a public statement in favour of free enquiry and free expression. Their statement of Academic Freedom has two main principles:

  1. that academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive, and
  2. that academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal.

AFAF and those who agree with its principles believe that it is important for academics to be able not only to express their opinions, but also to put them to scrutiny and to open further debate. They are against the idea of telling the public Platonic "noble lies" and believe that people need not be protected from radical views.

Academic freedom for academic staff

The concept of academic freedom as a right of faculty members is an established part of most legal systems. Different from the United States, where academic freedom is derived from the guarantee of free speech under the First Amendment, constitutions of other countries (and particularly of civil law jurisdictions) typically grant a separate right to free learning, teaching, and research.

In France

Professors at public French universities and researchers in public research laboratories are expected, as are all civil servants, to behave in a neutral manner and to not favor any particular political or religious point of view during the course of their duties. However, the academic freedom of university professors is a fundamental principle recognized by the laws of the Republic, as defined by the Constitutional Council; furthermore, statute law declares about higher education that "teachers-researchers (university professors and assistant professors), researchers and teachers are fully independent and enjoy full freedom of speech in the course of their research and teaching activities, provided they respect, following university traditions and the dispositions of this code, principles of tolerance and objectivity".[11] The nomination and promotion of professors is largely done through a process of peer review rather than through normal administrative procedures.

In Germany

The German Constitution (German: Grundgesetz) specifically grants academic freedom: "Art and science, research and teaching are free. Freedom of teaching does not absolve from loyalty to the constitution" (Art. 5, para. 3). In a tradition reaching back to the 19th century, jurisdiction has understood this right as one to teach (Lehrfreiheit), study (Lernfreiheit), and conduct research (Freiheit der Wissenschaft) freely, although the last concept has sometimes been taken as a cover term for the first two. Lehrfreiheit embraces the right of professors to determine the content of their lectures and to publish the results of their research without prior approval.

Since professors through their Habilitation receive the right to teach (Latin: venia docendi) in a particular academic field, academic freedom is deemed to cover at least the entirety of this field. Lernfreiheit means a student's right to determine an individual course of study. Finally, Freiheit der Wissenschaft permits academic self-governance and grants the university control of its internal affairs.

In The Netherlands

In The Netherlands, the academic freedom is rather limited. As defined in the Statute on Higher Education and Scientific Research (Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek, article 1.6), this freedom only applies to certain institutions, with the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) as a notable exception. So for instance even if they make scientifically solid statements about climate change, they are subject to political scrutiny. Which means that their publications are scientifically questionable (although a trained reader will spot inconsistencies if meteorologists jump to politically inspired conclusions).

In the Philippines

The 1987 Philippine Constitution states that, "Academic Freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning."[12] Philippine jurisprudence and courts of law, including the Philippine Supreme Court tend to reflexively defer to the institutional autonomy of higher institutions of learning in determining academic decisions with respect to the outcomes of individual cases filed in the courts regarding the abuse of Academic Freedom by professors, despite the individual merits or demerits of any cases.[13] A closely watched case was the controversial case of University of the Philippines at Diliman Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo who was not granted tenure due to an appeal by the minority dissenting vote within the faculty of the Sociology Department. This decision was sustained upon appeal by the dissenting faculty and Professor Raymundo to the University of the Philippines at Diliman Chancellor Sergio S. Cao; and though the case was elevated to University of the Philippines System President Emerlinda R. Roman, Roman denied the appeal which was elevated by Professor Raymundo to the University's Board of Regents for decision and the BOR granted her request for tenure. A major bone of contention among the supporters of Professor Raymundo was not to question the institutional Academic Freedom of the Department in not granting her tenure, but in asking for transparency in how the Academic Freedom of the department was exercised, in keeping with traditions within the University of the Philippines in providing a basis that may be subject to peer review, for Academic decisions made under the mantle of Academic Freedom.

In South Africa

Section 16 of the 1996 Constitution of South Africa offers specific protection to academic freedom.[14] However, there have been a large number of scandals around the restriction of academic freedom at a number of universities with particular concern being expressed at the situation at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.[15][16]

In New Zealand

Academic freedom pertains to forms of expression by academic staff engaged in scholarship and is defined by the Education Act 1989 (s161(2)) as: a) The freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions; b) The freedom of academic staff and students to engage in research; c) The freedom of the University and its staff to regulate the subject matter of courses taught at the University; d) The freedom of the University and its staff to teach and assess students in the manner they consider best promotes learning; and e) The freedom of the University through its Council and Vice-Chancellor to appoint its own staff. [17]

In the United States

In the United States, academic freedom is generally taken as the notion of academic freedom defined by the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure", jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges (AAC, now the Association of American Colleges and Universities).[18] These principles state that "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject."[18] The statement also permits institutions to impose "limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims", so long as they are "clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment".[18] The Principles have only the character of private pronouncements, not that of binding law.

The six regional accreditors work with American colleges and universities, including private and religious institutions, to implement this standard. Additionally, the AAUP, which is not an accrediting body, works with this same institutions. The AAUP does not always agree with the regional accrediting bodies on the standards of protection of academic freedom and tenure.[19] The AAUP lists those colleges and universities which it has found to violate these principles.[20] There is some case law in the United States that teachers are limited in their academic freedoms.

Academic freedom for colleges and universities (institutional autonomy)

A prominent feature of the English university concept is the freedom to appoint faculty, set standards and admit students. This ideal may be better described as institutional autonomy and is distinct from whatever freedom is granted to students and faculty by the institution.[21]

The Supreme Court of the United States said that academic freedom means a university can "determine for itself on academic grounds:

  1. who may teach,
  2. what may be taught,
  3. how it should be taught, and
  4. who may be admitted to study."[22][23][24]

In a 2008 case, a Federal court in Virginia ruled that professors have no academic freedom; all academic freedom resides with the university or college.[24] In that case, Stronach v. Virginia State University, a district court judge held "that no constitutional right to academic freedom exists that would prohibit senior (university) officials from changing a grade given by (a professor) to one of his students."[24] The court relied on mandatory precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire[23] and a case from the fourth circuit court of appeals.[24][25] The Stronach court also relied on persuasive cases from several circuits of the courts of appeals, including the first,[26] third,[27][28] and seventh[29] circuits. That court distinguished the situation when a university attempts to coerce a professor into changing a grade, which is clearly in violation of the First Amendment, from when university officials may, in their discretionary authority, change the grade upon appeal by a student.[24][30] The Stronach case has gotten significant attention in the academic community as an important precedent.[31]

Pontifical universities

Pontifical universities around the world such as The Catholic University of America, the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum in Rome, the Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium, and the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru depend for their status as pontifical universities and for the terms of academic freedom on the Pope through the Congregation for Catholic Education. The terms of academic freedom at ecclesiastical institutions of education are outlined in the apostolic constitution Sapientia Christiana,[32]

Relationship to freedom of speech

Academic freedom and free speech rights are not coextensive, although this widely accepted view has been recently challenged by an "institutionalist" perspective on the First Amendment.[33] Academic freedom involves more than speech rights; for example, it includes the right to determine what is taught in the classroom. The AAUP gives teachers a set of guidelines to follow when their ideas are considered threatening to religious, political, or social agendas. When teachers speak or write in public, whether via social media or in academic journals, they are able to articulate their own opinions without the fear from institutional restriction or punishment, but they are encouraged to show restraint and clearly specify that they are not speaking for their institution.[34] In practice, academic freedom is protected by institutional rules and regulations, letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, collective bargaining agreements, and academic custom.[35]

In the U.S., the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." By extension, the First Amendment applies to all governmental institutions, including public universities. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that academic freedom is a First Amendment right at public institutions.[36] However, The United States' First Amendment has generally been held to not apply to private institutions, including religious institutions. These private institutions may honor freedom of speech and academic freedom at their discretion.

Controversies

Evolution debate

Academic freedom is also associated with a movement to introduce intelligent design as an alternative explanation to evolution in US public schools. Supporters claim that academic institutions need to fairly represent all possible explanations for the observed biodiversity on Earth, rather than implying no alternatives to evolutionary theory exist.

Critics of the movement claim intelligent design is religiously motivated pseudoscience and cannot be allowed into the curriculum of US public schools due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, often citing Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District as legal precedent.[37][38] They also reject the allegations of discrimination against proponents of intelligent design, of which investigation showed no evidence.[39]

A number of "academic freedom bills" have been introduced in state legislatures in the United States between 2004 and 2008. The bills were based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute,[40] the hub of the Intelligent Design movement, and derive from language originally drafted for the Santorum Amendment in the United States Senate. According to the Wall Street Journal, the common goal of these bills is to expose more students to articles and videos that undercut evolution, most of which are produced by advocates of intelligent design or Biblical creationism.[41] The American Association of University Professors has reaffirmed its opposition to these academic freedom bills, including any portrayal of creationism as a scientifically credible alternative and any misrepresentation of evolution as scientifically controversial.[42][43] As of June 2008, only the Louisiana bill has been successfully passed into law.

The "Academic bill of rights"

Students for Academic Freedom[44] was founded in 2001 by David Horowitz to protect students from a perceived liberal bias in U.S. colleges and universities. The organization collected many statements from college students complaining that some of their professors were disregarding their responsibility to keep unrelated controversial material out of their classes and were instead teaching their subjects from an ideological point of view. In response, the organization drafted model legislation, called the Academic Bill of Rights, which has been introduced in several state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives. The Academic Bill of Rights is based on the Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure as published by the American Association of University Professors in 1915, and modified in 1940 and 1970. According to Students for Academic Freedom, academic freedom is "the freedom to teach and to learn." They contend that academic freedom promotes "intellectual diversity" and helps achieve a university's primary goals, i.e., "the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large." They feel that, in the past forty years, the principles as defined in the AAUP Declaration have become something of a dead letter, and that an entrenched class of tenured radical leftists is blocking all efforts to restore those principles.[45] In an attempt to override such opposition, the Academic Bill of Rights calls for state and judicial regulation of colleges. Such regulation would ensure that:

Opponents claim that such a bill would actually restrict academic freedom, by granting politically motivated legislators and judges the right to shape the nature and focus of scholarly concerns. According to the American Association of University Professors, the Academic Bill of Rights is, despite its title, an attack on the very concept of academic freedom itself: "A fundamental premise of academic freedom is that decisions concerning the quality of scholarship and teaching are to be made by reference to the standards of the academic profession, as interpreted and applied by the community of scholars who are qualified by expertise and training to establish such standards." The Academic Bill of Rights directs universities to implement the principle of neutrality by requiring the appointment of faculty "with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives," an approach they claim is problematic because "It invites diversity to be measured by political standards that diverge from the academic criteria of the scholarly profession." For example,"no department of political theory ought to be obligated to establish 'a plurality of methodologies and perspectives' by appointing a professor of Nazi political philosophy."[46] Concurring, the president of Appalachian Bible College in West Virginia fears that the Academic Bill of Rights "would inhibit his college's efforts to provide a faith-based education and would put pressure on the college to hire professors... who espouse views contrary to those of the institution."[47]

Specific cases

While some controversies of academic freedom are reflected in proposed laws that would affect large numbers of students through entire regions, many cases involve individual academicians that express unpopular opinions or share politically unfavorable information. These individual cases may receive widespread attention and periodically test the limits of, and support for, academic freedom.

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges, p. 3.
  2. ↑ 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges, p. 4.
  3. ↑ Glass, Bentley (May 1962). "Scientists in Politics". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 18 (5): 3.
  4. ↑ Michael Polanyi (1958). Personal Knowledge. ISBN 0-7734-9150-3.
  5. ↑ William McGucken (1978). "On Freedom and Planning in Science: The Society for Freedom in Science 1940–1946". Minerva. 16 (1): 42–72. doi:10.1007/BF01102181.
  6. ↑ William McGucken, 1978. "On Freedom and Planning in Science: The Society for Freedom in Science 1940–1946", Minerva, 16, pp. 42–72.
  7. ↑ Robert Quinn (2004). "Defending 'Dangerous Minds.'"
  8. ↑ Ralph E. Fuchs (1969). "Academic Freedom—Its Basic Philosophy, Function and History," in Louis Joughin (ed)., Academic Freedom and Tenure: A Handbook of the American Association of University Professors.
  9. ↑ Jasper Becker (1996). Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine. New York: Free Press.
  10. ↑ "Academics for Academic Freedom". UK. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
  11. ↑ French Education Code, L952-2, French Government.
  12. ↑ "1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES - CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  13. ↑ "Notice of Full Disclosure". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  14. ↑ "Redirecting old link". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  15. ↑ Submission by the Freedom of Expression Institute to the UKZN Council Committee on Governance and Academic Freedom, February 2009
  16. ↑ 'UKZN's commitment to academic freedom slated' by Latoya Newman, The Mercury, November 2008
  17. ↑ http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0080/latest/DLM183665.html
  18. 1 2 3 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, AAUP , accessed March 23, 2007
  19. ↑ For example, the Northwest Association of Schools and of Colleges and Universities reviewed Brigham Young University's academic freedom statement and found it in compliance with the 1940 statement, while AAUP has found Brigham Young University to be in violation
  20. ↑ "Censure List". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  21. ↑ (Kemp, p. 7)
  22. ↑ Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 312 (1978).
  23. 1 2 Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 262-263 (1957) (Felix Frankfurter, Justice).
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 Stronach v. Virginia State University, civil action 3:07-CV-646-HEH (E. D. Va. Jan. 15, 2008).
  25. ↑ See Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401, 414, 415 (4th Cir. 2000). (Noting that "cases that have referred to a First Amendment right of academic freedom have done so generally in terms of the institution, not the individual ...." and "Significantly, the court has never recognized that professors possess a First Amendment right of academic freedom to determine for themselves the content of their courses and scholarship, despite opportunities to do so".
  26. ↑ Lovelace v. S.E. Mass. University, 793 F.2d 419, 425 (1st Cir. 1986) ("To accept plaintiff's contention that an untenured teacher's grading policy is constitutionally protected . . . would be to constrict the university in defining and performing its educational mission".)
  27. ↑ Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania, 156 F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 1998) ("In Edwards v. Cal. Univ. of Pa., The court held that the First Amendment does not allow a university professor to decide what is taught in the classroom but rather protects the university's right to select the curriculum," as cited in Stronach.)
  28. ↑ Brown v. Amenti, 247 F.3d 69, 75 (3d Cir. 2001). (Holding "a public university professor does not have a First Amendment right to expression via the school's grade assignment procedures".)
  29. ↑ Wozniak v. Conry, 236 F.3d 888, 891 (7th Cir. 2001). (Holding that "No person has a fundamental right to teach undergraduate engineering classes without following the university's grading rules ...." and that "it is the [u]niversity's name, not [the professor]'s, that appears on the diploma; the [u]niversity, not [the professor], certifies to employers and graduate schools a student's successful completion of a course of study. Universities are entitled to assure themselves that their evaluation systems have been followed; otherwise their credentials are meaningless".)
  30. ↑ See Parate v. Isibor, 868 F.2d 821, 827-28 (6th Cir. 1989). (Holding that "a university professor may claim that his assignment of an examination grade or a final grade is communication protected by the First Amendment . . . [t]hus, the individual professor may not be compelled, by university officials, to change a grade that the professor previously assigned to her student".
  31. ↑ White, Lawrence, "CASE IN POINT: STRONACH V. VIRGINIA STATE U. (2008): Does Academic Freedom Give a Professor the Final Say on Grades?", Chronicle of Higher Education, found at Chronicle web site and Chronicle Review commentary and blog. Accessed May 20, 2008.
  32. ↑ http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15041979_sapientia-christiana_en.html Accessed June 24, 2011
  33. ↑ See, for instance, Paul Horwitz, "Universities as First Amendment Institutions: Some Easy Answers and Hard Questions, 54 UCLA Law Review 1497 (2007)
  34. ↑ "AAUP. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure" (PDF). AAUP.
  35. ↑ Donna Euben, Political And Religious Belief Discrimination On Campus: Faculty and Student Academic Freedom and The First Amendment.
  36. ↑ Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985).
  37. ↑ "Rethinking Schools Online". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  38. ↑ Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover. National Center for Science Education. October 17th, 2008
  39. ↑ Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, The Professional Staff of the Education Pre-K-12 Committee, Florida Senate, March 26, 2008
  40. ↑ "Academic Freedom" Bill in South Carolina Now Ed Brayton, Dispatches From the Culture Wars, May 18, 2008.
  41. ↑ Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools, Stephanie Simon, Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2008
  42. ↑ Academic Freedom and Teaching Evolution Resolutions of the 94th Annual Meeting, American Association of University Professors. 2008
  43. ↑ The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott. Scientific American, December 2008.
  44. ↑ Students for Academic Freedom. "Students For Academic Freedom". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  45. ↑ Indoctrination U: the Left's war against academic freedom / David Horowitz, 2007 ISBN 1-59403-190-8
  46. ↑ "Academic Bill of Rights". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  47. ↑ Alyson Klein (2004). "Worried on the Left and Right." Chronicle of Higher Education (July 9, 2004).
  48. ↑ "Exhibits". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  49. ↑ "The Bassett Affair of 1903". Retrieved 11 July 2016.
  50. ↑ Nelson, Lawrence J. (2003). Rumors of Indiscretion: The University of Missouri "Sex Questionnaire" Scandal in the Jazz Age. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. ISBN 0-8262-1449-5.
  51. ↑ A.J. Carlson (February 1930). "Report on the Dismissal of Professor DeGraff and the Suspension of Professor Meyer". Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. XVI (2): 2–35. doi:10.2307/40218216.
  52. ↑ Mary Seymour, "The Ghosts of Rollins (and Other Skeletons in the Closet)", Rollins Magazine, fall 2011, http://www.rollins.edu/magazine/fall-2011/ghosts-of-rollins-2.html; http://www.jstor.org/stable/40218822
  53. ↑ William B. Shockley, 79, Creator Of Transistor and Theory on Race
  54. ↑ Kilgore, William J.; Sullivan, Barbara (1975). "Academic Values and the Jensen-Shockley Controversy". Journal of General Education.
  55. ↑ Paulson, Steven K. (September 10, 2012). "Ward Churchill loses appeal to win back CU job". Denver Post. Retrieved 2012-09-10.
  56. ↑ "Summers' remarks on women draw fire". Boston.com. Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  57. ↑ Stephan Thernstrom. "In Defense of Academic Freedom at Harvard". History News Network, George Mason University.
  58. ↑ ""The Phases and Faces of the Duke Lacrosse Controversy: A Conversation " by James E. Coleman Jr., Angela Davis et al.". scholarship.law.duke.edu. Retrieved 2016-01-31.
  59. ↑ Fight for Fazel Khan – An archive of documents on the dismissal of Fazel Khan]
  60. ↑ Letter from foreign academics to Mac Mia, Chair of Council, and Malegapuru Makgoba, Vice Chancellor Letter from David William Cohen and 35 others
  61. ↑ Carey, Benedict. (21 August 2007) "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege." The New York Times.
  62. ↑ Dreger AD (June 2008). "The controversy surrounding "The man who would be queen": a case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the Internet age" (PDF). Arch Sex Behav. 37 (3): 366–421. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1. PMC 3170124Freely accessible. PMID 18431641.
  63. ↑ "Rights for some people". Inside Higher Ed. 8 June 2009. Retrieved 11 June 2009.
  64. ↑ Tay Shi'an (22 July 2009). "She's not against gay people, just against gay agenda". The New Paper. Retrieved 24 July 2009.
  65. ↑ Helfand, Duke (30 April 2009). "Professor's comparison of Israelis to Nazis stirs furor". Los Angeles Times.
  66. ↑ Dana L. Cloud (April 30, 2009). "The McCarthyism That Horowitz Built: The Cases of Margo Ramlal Nankoe, William Robinson, Nagesh Rao and Loretta Capeheart". CounterPunch.
  67. ↑ SPME Statement on the Disposition of the Case of William Robinson at UCSB, SPME Board of Directors, June 29, 2009
  68. ↑ "DILIMAN DIARY". Retrieved 3 May 2015.
  69. ↑ Horn, Michiel, "Professors in the Public Eye: Canadian Universities, Academic Freedom, and the League for Social Reconstruction." History of Education Quarterly. 20.4, Winter 1980. pp. 425-447
  70. ↑ Horn, Michiel, "Professors in the Public Eye: Canadian Universities, Academic Freedom, and the League for Social Reconstruction." History of Education Quarterly. 20.4, Winter 1980. p. 443
  71. ↑ "U. of Illinois Board's Denial of Job to Salaita Is Unlikely to Quell Controversy". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2016-02-01.

Further reading

External links

Archives
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/16/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.