What does "academic freedom" protect?

[ciao_yall]

If a faculty member, in a particular field, uses their position to knowingly mislead the public on a topic related to their expertise... is that "academic freedom?"

IHE: Boulder Won't Cancel Scholar Who Wrote Harris Op-Ed

[writingprof]

One thing academic freedom should mean is that the word "knowingly" must be proven, not merely tossed in as a slander.

[ciao_yall]

One thing academic freedom should mean is that the word "knowingly" must be proven, not merely tossed in as a slander.

It seems a legal scholar would know that the definition of natural-born citizen has been settled law since the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

If not, is he incompetent? Does academic freedom protect incompetence?

[marshwiggle]

One thing academic freedom should mean is that the word "knowingly" must be proven, not merely tossed in as a slander.

It seems a legal scholar would know that the definition of natural-born citizen has been settled law since the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

If not, is he incompetent? Does academic freedom protect incompetence?

He says "there is a serious constitutional dispute here, one that remains unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court." I would assume that somone who does know constitutional law could verify.

[Caracal]

One thing academic freedom should mean is that the word "knowingly" must be proven, not merely tossed in as a slander.

It seems a legal scholar would know that the definition of natural-born citizen has been settled law since the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

If not, is he incompetent? Does academic freedom protect incompetence?

He says "there is a serious constitutional dispute here, one that remains unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court." I would assume that somone who does know constitutional law could verify.

It is deliberately misleading. The Supreme Court doesn't have to weigh in to have a certain meaning of the constitution to be widely accepted. Actually, when people have tried to sue arguing that a presidential candidate is ineligible, lower courts have ruled that individuals lack the standing to sue and that congress, not the courts might actually be the ultimate arbiter of questions of eligibility.

As for the actual argument, it doesn't really make much sense. The term natural born never had a precise definition, but it was usually understood to mean anybody born in the country, under 18th century English Common Law. The 14th amendment unambiguously stated that anyone born in the US was a citizen. It doesn't really make sense to argue that somehow natural born means something different than a person born as a citizen of the US.

That said, yes, academic freedom does have to protect stupid, bad and even dishonest academic arguments. I can think of quite a few academic works that I think are fundamentally dishonest, in the sense that I believe they twist the evidence, or leave out important pieces of evidence, in ways that go beyond questions of interpretation. However, that kind of accusation is fundamentally about scholarly argument and if it resulted in people being fired from their jobs, it would stifle the academics to weigh in on controversial questions.

[clean]

My quick scan shows that this has nothing whatsoever to do with academic freedom. The author wrote an op ed in a magazine.  It is not related to his/her employment duties.  It was an expression of free speech.  He is fortunate that the university is not taking action, if the article was repugnant or against the university's interests (ASSUMING that he noted his standing as a visiting professor at the place.)  IF he is Joe Schmo off the street publishing an op ed, who cares?

Academic Freedom protects us from retribution for doing what we are paid to do.  If we write something that is related to our field but unpopular, we are (should be) protected from repercussions. 

IF I, as a finance professor, write an OP ed for or against the president or QAnon, and I include my employment affiliation, then I may have done harm to my employer and it is NOT part of my discipline and I would have no protections from repercussions if my dean or higher admincritter objected.

IF, on the other hand, I wrote an article or even an op ed outlining how one candidate or another's policy statement on Social Security or retirement plans was especially good or bad, then that IS related to my employment, so I should be protected.

Still, IF I am publishing outside of an academic journal, hten I am better off (safer) to NOT list my professional affiliations at all.  It is unlikely that a Newsweek OP ed will count one bit toward my annual evaluations.

At my employer, we are periodically reminded (through regular training we are required to take) about the appropriate use of university equipment, including computers and email accounts.  IF we use these resources for personal use (and certainly for financial gain), that is a violation of the policy provisions and I could be disciplined for that.  (IF I send emails from my university account asking for money, for instance, that would be bad.  IF I sent a letter to an eatery complaining  aobut their service on university letterhead, Id be open for retribution).  No academic freedom in these examples!!  (It is NOT a 'get out of jail free' card).

[ciao_yall]

One thing academic freedom should mean is that the word "knowingly" must be proven, not merely tossed in as a slander.

It seems a legal scholar would know that the definition of natural-born citizen has been settled law since the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

If not, is he incompetent? Does academic freedom protect incompetence?

He says "there is a serious constitutional dispute here, one that remains unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court." I would assume that somone who does know constitutional law could verify.

He says himself:

I have no doubt that this significant challenge to Harris' constitutional eligibility to the second-highest office in the land will be dismissed out of hand as so much antiquated constitutional tripe.

So it sounds as though even he realizes his points are pretty silly.

[Caracal]

My quick scan shows that this has nothing whatsoever to do with academic freedom. The author wrote an op ed in a magazine.  It is not related to his/her employment duties.  It was an expression of free speech.  He is fortunate that the university is not taking action, if the article was repugnant or against the university's interests (ASSUMING that he noted his standing as a visiting professor at the place.)  IF he is Joe Schmo off the street publishing an op ed, who cares?

Academic Freedom protects us from retribution for doing what we are paid to do.  If we write something that is related to our field but unpopular, we are (should be) protected from repercussions. 

IF I, as a finance professor, write an OP ed for or against the president or QAnon, and I include my employment affiliation, then I may have done harm to my employer and it is NOT part of my discipline and I would have no protections from repercussions if my dean or higher admincritter objected.

IF, on the other hand, I wrote an article or even an op ed outlining how one candidate or another's policy statement on Social Security or retirement plans was especially good or bad, then that IS related to my employment, so I should be protected.

Still, IF I am publishing outside of an academic journal, hten I am better off (safer) to NOT list my professional affiliations at all.  It is unlikely that a Newsweek OP ed will count one bit toward my annual evaluations.

I'm not sure I understand. He's a law professor writing an article about a legal question. In terms of questions of academic freedom, why would it matter where he publishes it? Academic freedom applies whether he's writing in an OP-ED, a professional journal or on twitter.

[ciao_yall]

My quick scan shows that this has nothing whatsoever to do with academic freedom. The author wrote an op ed in a magazine.  It is not related to his/her employment duties.  It was an expression of free speech.  He is fortunate that the university is not taking action, if the article was repugnant or against the university's interests (ASSUMING that he noted his standing as a visiting professor at the place.)  IF he is Joe Schmo off the street publishing an op ed, who cares?

Academic Freedom protects us from retribution for doing what we are paid to do.  If we write something that is related to our field but unpopular, we are (should be) protected from repercussions. 

IF I, as a finance professor, write an OP ed for or against the president or QAnon, and I include my employment affiliation, then I may have done harm to my employer and it is NOT part of my discipline and I would have no protections from repercussions if my dean or higher admincritter objected.

IF, on the other hand, I wrote an article or even an op ed outlining how one candidate or another's policy statement on Social Security or retirement plans was especially good or bad, then that IS related to my employment, so I should be protected.

Still, IF I am publishing outside of an academic journal, hten I am better off (safer) to NOT list my professional affiliations at all.  It is unlikely that a Newsweek OP ed will count one bit toward my annual evaluations.

I'm not sure I understand. He's a law professor writing an article about a legal question. In terms of questions of academic freedom, why would it matter where he publishes it? Academic freedom applies whether he's writing in an OP-ED, a professional journal or on twitter.

I'm having a problem with the fact that what he is saying is objectively incorrect and inflammatory, and he is using his position as a way of trying to make an illegitimate point seem legitimate, when it's not.

That's different from having a controversial opinion.

[clean]

I'm not sure I understand. He's a law professor writing an article about a legal question. In terms of questions of academic freedom, why would it matter where he publishes it? Academic freedom applies whether he's writing in an OP-ED, a professional journal or on twitter.

My scan of the article must have missed the field of the writer or the specific topic.  IF the topic is related to the field, then yes, academic freedom should apply. 
(The question competence failure, may belong to Newsweek.  IF they didnt review the accuracy of the submission (peer review), then perhaps it is their problem!)

[Caracal]

I'm having a problem with the fact that what he is saying is objectively incorrect and inflammatory, and he is using his position as a way of trying to make an illegitimate point seem legitimate, when it's not.

That's different from having a controversial opinion.

As long as we are talking about the substance of his argument, I agree with you. However, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it is objectively incorrect in the same way that it would be objectively incorrect if he was saying that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

The constitution says that only a "natural born citizen" is qualified to be president. What does that mean? Who knows. It was a term used in 18th century England that didn't really have a precise definition, although it apparently usually meant someone born in the country. It isn't clear why that term was included in the constitution. People born in the US are citizens by the 14th amendment regardless of the status of their parents (unless the parents are diplomats) Eastman is arguing that "Natural Born Citizen" means something different than "a citizen at birth."

I think that is a stupid argument, and I think he's being misleading when he's claiming that somehow this is really an unsettled issue. (The actual unsettled questions are about whether someone born abroad  to US parents might be eligible or not, and in what circumstances) But the point is that it is a question of interpretation

[Caracal]

I'm not sure I understand. He's a law professor writing an article about a legal question. In terms of questions of academic freedom, why would it matter where he publishes it? Academic freedom applies whether he's writing in an OP-ED, a professional journal or on twitter.

My scan of the article must have missed the field of the writer or the specific topic.  IF the topic is related to the field, then yes, academic freedom should apply. 
(The question competence failure, may belong to Newsweek.  IF they didnt review the accuracy of the submission (peer review), then perhaps it is their problem!)

Exactly, they shouldn't be publishing articles based on flimsy logic, but he has the academic freedom to submit it.

[Hibush]

Universities vary quite a bit in what academic freedom actually provides. The most universal is that faculty can make controversial statements without getting canned. The case in question seems right down the middle of that protection.

That said, if this opinion is also contrary to some of the institutions academic principles or is unsupported by the facts as seen by those in the field, he's going to get a lot of crap for making the statement. He has no protection from that whatsoever. But he can't get canned for it.

Ideally, students will note the substance of the arguments and learn something from the exchange. Some students, maybe. But that is one of the reasons for being strict on academic freedom. The other is that sometimes the lonely voice is right and this is one of the few places to challenge common understandings that are not.

[clean]

Very tangential to the topic...
Long ago we hired a replacement for a deceased faculty member. WE made it very clear in the interview what the job would entail. It included teaching our core class and that the interviewed candidate was clear that he would be very happy to teach the class as the course leader directed.  (That the text was the same the chapter coverage would be uniform and the projects would be common.... it should not have mattered what professor one took, in other words).  As soon as he got in the door I started hearing complaints about the new hire.  Finally, as the tenure year was nearing, he came to me.  I told him that I had heard nothing but complaints about him about the team leader, and about the team leader from him. I told him that I had not made a decision about how I would vote for his tenure, but I reminded him that in the interview he was full of assurances that he would follow the lead of whoever was the course director.  He hurtfully claimed "But I have Academic Freedom to teach what I want".  I said, that he had to follow the standardized syllabus and that at the interview he was Glad to have so much already done! 

SO,  in the end, he had the academic freedom to find another job instead of going up for tenure and we were free to find someone else that was a better fit!

As I pointed out to him when he came to me, we are a team and IF he isnt a team player BEFORE tenure, why would we want to have all of these arguments For Life??

When he took the new job I was Free from having to cast my vote on whether he should be tenured based on his failure to follow the standardized syllabus he seemed to think he had the Academic Freedom to ignore. 

Anyway, add that to the mix of what is and is not covered by 'academic freedom' .   

[jimbogumbo]

I'm not sure I understand. He's a law professor writing an article about a legal question. In terms of questions of academic freedom, why would it matter where he publishes it? Academic freedom applies whether he's writing in an OP-ED, a professional journal or on twitter.

My scan of the article must have missed the field of the writer or the specific topic.  IF the topic is related to the field, then yes, academic freedom should apply. 
(The question competence failure, may belong to Newsweek.  IF they didnt review the accuracy of the submission (peer review), then perhaps it is their problem!)

The authors of the point/counterpoint are both esteemed law profs.

From Newsweek:

The essay—by Chapman University law professor John C. Eastman, also a Claremont Institute denizen, and headlined "Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility" was rebutted by Eugene Volokh in the same issue.To me it just seemed like two law profs doing what law profs do.

My reading and listening seems to support the "settled law" position of Volokh, but it also is possible there is no such thing as settled law.