Academic Freedom

Academic freedom is a foundational principle in higher education, empowering both educators and students to explore, teach, and learn without fear of censorship or retribution. Traditionally viewed as the right of faculty to express their ideas and conduct research, the concept has evolved to emphasize the importance of students' rights to engage with a diverse range of perspectives. The debate surrounding academic freedom has intensified in recent years, particularly regarding potential biases in the classroom, sparked by both political tensions and events such as September 11, 2001.

Historically, the notion of academic freedom can be traced back to ancient philosophers like Socrates and Plato, who championed the pursuit of truth through open discourse. In modern America, key documents like the 1915 Declaration of Principles and the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure outline rights related to inquiry, teaching, and free expression. However, the interpretation of these rights often varies, with some advocating for a balance between faculty and student rights, while others highlight concerns about ideological bias. Organizations like Students for Academic Freedom argue for protections against perceived liberal bias, while critics contend that such movements may, in fact, threaten the essence of academic freedom itself. Overall, the dialogue surrounding academic freedom remains complex, reflecting broader societal debates about the nature of education and the responsibilities of those within academic institutions.

Published in: 2021

By: Diorio, Gina L.

Subject Terms

Academic Freedom

Abstract

The topic of academic freedom on public college and university campuses has garnered national media attention and stirred passionate arguments from educators, students, and third party interests alike. This article explores the historical development of the philosophy of academic freedom and discusses its evolution from a teacher-centered to a teacher-student inclusive principle. It examines current divergent viewpoints regarding the definition and scope of academic freedom as it pertains to teachers' rights and students' rights and studies the political overtones that have come to characterize the nature of the academic freedom debate. Furthermore, the article discusses certain efforts that have been made to protect academic freedom on college and university campuses.

Overview

The concept of academic freedom on American college and university campuses is a principle fiercely guarded by educators and administrators alike. In recent years, many perceived and actual violations of this autonomy of thought and idea have met with vocal resistance, strong criticism, and, often, national media attention. Furthermore, particularly since the events of September 11, legislative and judicial intervention in academic freedom cases has increased the profile of many such cases and increased the debate surrounding the meaning and limits of what is and is not acceptable speech and action on American campuses and university classrooms.

Traditionally, academic freedom has been understood to apply to what is taught in the classroom, but educators and administrators do not hold the monopoly on academic freedom rights. Increasingly, students are asserting that these rights belong equally to them. The entrance of students into the arena of debate has not only challenged the traditional meaning of academic freedom but has also brought to the forefront of national attention the question of balancing freedom with responsibility while ensuring that the classroom remains a vibrant forum for the exchange and exploration of ideas and philosophies.

History. Belief in academic freedom as a necessary bulwark to a quality educational experience is not unique to the United States. In fact, the roots of such freedom extend as far back in history as the ancient Greeks. The great philosopher Socrates raised the ire of Athenian leaders by encouraging young people to ask questions in pursuit of truth. So great was the outcry against this ideological exploration that Socrates found himself on trial, accused of corrupting the youth. Convicted and sentenced to execution, Socrates nevertheless refused to succumb to the pressures of the state, maintaining until death his belief in the necessity of unfettered inquiry to the discovery of truth. Socrates' student Plato soon took up the cause of his mentor and established the Academy as a place of open discourse and learning in the pursuit of truth. Unlike his predecessor, Plato's work did not earn him a sentence of death, and one might say that his endeavor marked the first victory for academic freedom. To Socrates and Plato, academic freedom was not an end in and of itself. Rather, it was a means to an end: namely, the discovery of truth.

In medieval times, academic freedom and the pursuit of truth found a welcoming home on the first university campuses in Europe. Crabtree (2002) holds that this stemmed from a general adherence among academics and society as a whole to the Christian worldview, which taught that pursuit of truth was not merely a hobby or interest but rather a God-given calling. Thus "[a]cademic freedom was rooted in the belief that academics were carrying out a mission that transcended the authority of any man or human institution to countermand" (Crabtree, 2002, para. 7). As a result, secular and religious authorities allowed universities to operate with significant amounts of intellectual autonomy.

Fellman's work (2003), however, qualifies this assertion. He notes that, until the late 16th Century, while universities were often institutionally independent, instructors were nevertheless subject to strict limitations placed upon them both by internal and external authorities. With the 1575 founding of the university at Leiden, Germany, however, he notes that the philosophy of academic freedom found fertile ground in which to take root.

With the advent of the Enlightenment and the spread of philosophical liberalism, the concept of academic freedom as an open mechanism for the exchange of ideas grew in popularity and acceptance. Fellman notes, "[T]he rise of political, religious, and economic liberalism … [gave way to] a logical transition from the competition of the marketplace to the competition of ideas" (Fellman, 2005, p.10).

Like their medieval predecessors, American universities have staked their claim to academic freedom in the foundation of religious calling. Most early universities in the New World were religious in nature and identified their purpose as the preparation of individuals for Christian work. In keeping with this calling, universities understood academic freedom to mean the ability to function autonomously and to pursue truth apart from the interference of outside governmental entities and dictates.

Further Insights

Academic Freedom in 20th Century America. Following the American Civil War, the general understanding of academic freedom changed. Crabtree credits this to the increased adherence among intellectuals to secularist philosophies. Education became more a means of preparation for societal contributions than training for religious endeavors, and academics found themselves entering more and more into the public arena of political discourse. As a result, academic freedom in America came to mean the ability of individual professors to state their opinions and speak their ideas in the classroom without fear of retribution. As educational philosophy has come to focus on students' learning experiences as well as educators' teaching practices, however, the definition of academic freedom has expanded to encompass the right of students to learn.

The 1915 Declaration of Principles. In 1915, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), under its president John Dewey, and the AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure, adopted a General Declaration of Principles, today commonly known as the 1915 Declaration of Principles. The Declaration identified the meaning of academic freedom as stemming from the German principles of Lehrfreiheit and Lernfreiheit, the former being the freedom of the teacher to teach and the latter referring to the freedom or right of the student to learn. The Declaration held that academic freedom consisted of three elements:

"freedom of inquiry and research;
"freedom of teaching within the university or college; and
"freedom of extramural utterance and action" (AAUP's 1915 Declaration of principles).

Echoing the post–Civil War shift in popular understanding of the purpose of education from religious training to societal preparation, the Declaration outlined the three functions of academic institutions:

"To promote inquiry and advance the sum of human knowledge;
"To provide general instruction to the students; [and]
"To develop experts for various branches of the public service" (AAUP's 1915 Declaration of Principles).

The Declaration concluded that this function was only possible in an atmosphere of academic freedom. However, such freedom was not deemed to be the ability to say what one pleases with no regard for the opinions or others or to discount the beliefs of others through intimation or open hostility. Highlighted in the Declaration was a specific admonition that rights and responsibilities are inseparable, and, while teachers should not be required to hide their opinions, neither should they attempt to suppress or discredit the viewpoints of others. According to the Declaration, the professor must "above all, remember that his business is not to provide his students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials which they need if they are to think intelligently" (AAUP's 1915 Declaration of Principles).

The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom & Tenure. Twenty-five years later, in 1940, the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges (AAC), now the Association of American Colleges and Universities, produced the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. This statement followed a series of joint conference meetings begun in 1934 and was similar in perspective to the 1915 Declaration. The purpose of the 1940 Statement was "to promote public understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon procedures to ensure them in colleges and universities" (American Association of University Professors, 1940, para. 1).

The Statement described the purpose of education as promotion of the common good rather than the advancement of the interests of any individual person or institution. Furthermore, the Statement noted that such an advancement of the common good "depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition" (American Association of University Professors, 1940, para. 1). Consistent with earlier understandings of academic freedom, the 1940 Statement approached the principle primarily from the perspective of instructors rather than from the viewpoint of students. Nevertheless, in promoting academic freedom for teachers, the Statement held that such freedom would safeguard both the instructors' rights and the students' rights. As outlined in the Statement, academic freedom consisted of three main principles:

"Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in publication of the results, subject to adequate performance of their other academic duties;…
"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;…
"College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution" (AAUP, 1940).

Keyishian v. Board of Regents. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court provided an endorsement of academic freedom in the case of Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967). The plaintiffs in this case consisted of both faculty and non-faculty employees of the State University of New York. The faculty employees claimed that their employment had been unjustly terminated by the university due to their refusal to abide by requirements that they assert they were not members of the Communist party, and the non-faculty employees claimed unjust termination based on their refusal to swear under oath that they had never advocated or identified with a group that had ever advocated the forceful overthrow of the government.

In this landmark case, the Court identified academic freedom as a Constitutional right found in the First Amendment. The Court stated in its opinion: "Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom" (Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 1967).

In light of this interpretation, the AAUP and the AAC reconvened in 1969 to evaluate the 1940 Statement and recommend any revisions or changes. The result of this conference was a presentation of the 1970 Interpretations on the 1940 Statement. The Interpretations confirmed that the Statement should not be understood to discourage controversy of opinion but that it should rather be a caution that professors not introduce into the classroom materials unrelated to the subject matter at hand. While additional revisions have been made to the Statement since 1979, the core philosophical components remain the foundation among American colleges and universities for understanding and interpreting the principle and practice of academic freedom.

Viewpoints

The existence of a formal document defining such freedom and outlining its purpose has not, however, served to alleviate the debate, discussion, and disagreement surrounding the legitimate parameters of academic freedom and the point at which many believe a professor's right to teach impinges upon a student's right to learn. Moreover, as in 1915, political factors weigh heavily in the debate, and opposing arguments are most often categorized not in academic terms but rather by the partisan labels of right-wing versus left-wing.

Students for Academic Freedom & the Academic Bill of Rights. On one side of the issue are groups such as Students for Academic Freedom (SAF), who believe that liberal bias among professors has become so prevalent on college campuses that students are no longer able to obtain a fair and objective education. Founded by conservative leader David Horowitz, SAF operates as a watchdog, chronicling cases of reported abuse of power by university professors. SAF agrees with the premise of AAUP's 1915 Declaration but holds that many public universities and university professors today do not abide by the principles contained in the document.

According to Horowitz (2006), not only are faculty at most universities politically and philosophically biased and overly partisan, but course selections and allowable classroom debate also reflect only one side of any issue. Furthermore, groups such as SAF hold that students whose political or religious viewpoints differ from those of professors are often publicly disparaged. Such complaints of violation of academic freedom extend beyond the classroom, sometimes to student groups granted funding by universities, and SAF seeks to chronicle cases in which conservative or religious groups or speakers are not afforded the same university resources as liberal organizations or speakers.

In an effort to counter his perceived liberal bias among university professors and institutions of higher learning, Horowitz authored the Academic Bill of Rights, which outlines eight principles of academic freedom intended to protect both teachers and students against undue ideological influence and pressure from governmental or other sources or partisan interests. Among the principles are the provision that students be graded solely on their academic abilities and performance and not on their religious or political beliefs, that professors not utilize the platform of the classroom to advance their own political, religious, non-religious, or ideological viewpoints, that university funds be allocated to groups and speakers that reflect the diversity and pluralism of the students, and that universities themselves remain neutral with regard to ideological, political, or religious disputes arising as a result of faculty or other professional research.

Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights has garnered significant state and national attention by academics and legislators alike, yet on the other side of the academic freedom debate stand those who believe that the Bill is nothing more than a restriction of freedom masquerading as a defense of the same. Ivie (2005) takes particular aim at Horowitz's methodology and conclusions, holding that his assertion of liberal bias on college campuses is "unwarranted" and a result of a "so-called study" which consisted of "a skewed sample, shoddy data collection, slanted statistics, and presumptive attributions of cause" (Ivie, 2005, pp. 63-64). Ivie holds that efforts by SAF and similar organizations to label universities as politically and religiously biased are, in reality, thinly veiled attempts to promote a conservative, right-wing agenda and relegate universities to a position of self-defense.

Similarly, Minnich (2006) claims that the conservative movement to secure academic freedom is, in reality, "organized pressure" to teach a certain political or religious ideology. Rather than protecting freedom, Minnich argues, this movement restricts such freedom by encouraging "spying" in the classroom and "monitoring" classroom discussion. The American Association of University Professors agrees. In a statement on the Academic Bill of Rights, the AAUP held that the Bill is "improper and dangerous" and actually threatens the very academic freedom it purports to defend (AAUP Statement on Academic Bill of Rights, 2003). By recommending guidelines for diversity in the representation of political viewpoints among faculty, for example, the Bill, according to AAUP, belies the practice of institutional neutrality which it claims to support.

Academic Freedom after 9/11. While the conservative versus liberal debate in academia has been present for some time, the events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent U.S. War on Terror brought the issue to the center of the national stage. Professors on several university campuses who have spoken out in critique of the war or in perceived sympathy to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks have found themselves under fire from students and outside organizations for their remarks, while students taking positions opposite to these and other professors have, likewise, found their viewpoints ridiculed or discounted. This reality has brought increased attention to the questions of what is and what is not appropriate classroom discussion and when does academic freedom cross the line to partisan bias.

According to Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), current cases of reported abuse on college campuses are similar to cases that appeared 10 and 20 years ago, yet the heightened sensitivity aroused by 9/11 has resulted in added attention being drawn by these cases. As national attention has focused increasingly on the prospect of balancing liberty with security in a post-9/11 world, public interest in the political activities and opinions of university faculty and their relationship to student freedom has grown (Gravois, 2006).

Students' Academic Freedom. Taking neither the extreme left or extreme right positions, some believe that while academic freedom remains alive and well for institutions of higher learning and for students, the same freedom for university professors is weakening. According to Gary Pavela, director of judicial programs at the University of Maryland, College Park, students have become more aware of their right to academic freedom, and institutions are enjoying judicial support for their autonomy. Pavela points to the 2003 Supreme Court decisions in Gratz and Grutter in which the Court upheld the rights of institutions to exercise judgment in certain educational matters. At the same time, however, Pavela expresses concern that grassroots and legislative movements to support academic freedom for students may come at the expense of a certain degree of freedom for faculty (cited in "Balancing student and faculty academic freedom," 2005).

Conclusion

In the arena of public debate, the competition between the liberal and conservative interpretations of academic freedom offers few signs of reprieve and leaves educators, administrators, legislators, and students alike searching for ways to balance opposing interests while maintaining the vigor of academic exploration that is vital to intellectual pursuit. As Bollinger (2005) notes, the climate of freedom on today's campuses requires a "renewed understanding" of four basic principles of academic freedom. He asserts that the position of professor carries with it the concurrent responsibility to nurture students' scholastic endeavors while acting with sensitivity towards divergent viewpoints. He calls for a balanced approach in which professors are free to state their opinions but not to portray their opinions as holding greater merit than all others, yet maintains that professors must exercise caution when entering the political realm and must clearly distinguish between their actions as professors and their activities as private citizens. Finally, he urges that preservation of academic freedom remain the responsibility of universities and professors and not that of outside groups, politicians, or the media.

As students, professors, educational institutions, and outside groups seek to advance their respective causes, the debate over the proper practice of academic freedom will undoubtedly continue. Despite differences of opinion in practice, the principle of academic freedom is central to sincere intellectual exploration, and, in the melting pot of ideas that form today's universities, presentation of divergent viewpoints allows students to challenge themselves intellectually while pursuing the truth that is the aim of all education.

Terms & Concepts

Academic Bill of Rights: A document written by David Horowitz and distributed by Students for Academic Freedom which outlines eight principles for achieving an educational environment free of bias.

Academic Freedom: The right of a teacher or professor to perform research and state their beliefs without fear of professional retribution. The term has also come to apply to the right of students to learn without fear of having their beliefs discounted.

American Association of University Professors: An organization of professors and academics whose mission is to advance academic freedom, set standards for higher education, and work towards using higher education for the common good.

Diversity: As it pertains to academic freedom, a variety of viewpoints represented by students and professors with differing opinions.

Lehrfreiheit: The right of teachers to teach.

Lernfreiheit: The right of students to learn, particularly as it relates to the right of students to choose their own course of study.

Students' Rights: The right of students to pursue learning and express opinions in the classroom without fear of bias or disparagement from faculty or administration.

Students for Academic Freedom: An organization whose goal is to end political bias on university campuses and return to campuses the objective pursuit of knowledge.

Tenure: The state of holding a position permanently without contract renewals.

Bibliography

AAUP's 1915 declaration of principles. (1915). Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org//index.php?option=com‗content&task=view&id=2200&Itemid=3

American Association of University Professors. (1940). 1940 Statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/1940statement.htm

American Association of University Professors. (2003). Statement on Academic Bill of Rights. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/About/committees/committee+repts/CommA/academicbillof+rights.htm

Balancing student and faculty academic freedom. (2005). National On- Campus Report, 33 , 1–6. Retrieved March 06, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18769651&site=ehost-live

Bollinger, L. (2005, Apr.). The value and responsibilities of academic freedom. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51 , B20–B20. Retrieved March 06, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16744328&site=ehost-live

Crabtree, D. (2002). Academic freedom. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/education/articles/acadfree.html

Fellman, D. (2003). Academic freedom. In P. P. Weiner (Ed.) Dictionary of the history of ideas (pp.10–17). Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-02

Gravois, J. (2006). Despite post-9/11 fears, groups that protect academic freedom remain strong. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 , A12–A12. Retrieved March 06, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22478107&site=ehost-live

Horowitz, D. (2006). Academic bill of rights. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org//index.php?option=com‗content&task=view&id=1925&Itemid=43

Horowitz, D. (2006). Mission and strategy. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org//index.php?option=com‗content&task=view&id=1917&Itemid=43

Ivie, R. (2005). A presumption of academic freedom. Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 27 , 53–85. Retrieved March 06, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16968172&site=ehost-live

Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967). Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=385&invol=589

Minnich, E. (2006). Between impartiality and bias. Change, 38 , 16–23. Retrieved March 06, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21058290&site=ehost-live

Mutisya, P. M, & Osler, J. E., II. (2017). Academic freedom and shared governance: Framework to reclaim academic prestige in the academy. Journal on School Educational Technology, 12(4), 35–48. Retrieved Jan. 3, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=124772956&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Academic Freedom

On this Page

Subject Terms

Academic Freedom

Abstract

Overview

Further Insights

Viewpoints

Conclusion

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading