Protests and police on campus

[marshwiggle]

Professors in Trouble Over Protests Wonder if Academic Freedom Is Dying
Universities have cracked down on professors for pro-Palestinian activism, saying they are protecting students and tamping down on hate speech. Faculty members say punishments have put a "chill in the air."

If a professor's "activism" interferes with their performance of their duties, (or with students' right to learn), then it shouldn't be allowed.

[Hibush]

Professors in Trouble Over Protests Wonder if Academic Freedom Is Dying
Universities have cracked down on professors for pro-Palestinian activism, saying they are protecting students and tamping down on hate speech. Faculty members say punishments have put a "chill in the air."

If a professor's "activism" interferes with their performance of their duties, (or with students' right to learn), then it shouldn't be allowed.

If a donor's activism interferes with a professor's performance of their duties or with a student's right to learn--ideas the donor dislikes, then it shouldn't be allowed. That is the dynamic I'm seeing on my campus. Administrators are the conduit for donor interference; their behavior needs to follow the rules.

[marshwiggle]

Professors in Trouble Over Protests Wonder if Academic Freedom Is Dying
Universities have cracked down on professors for pro-Palestinian activism, saying they are protecting students and tamping down on hate speech. Faculty members say punishments have put a "chill in the air."

If a professor's "activism" interferes with their performance of their duties, (or with students' right to learn), then it shouldn't be allowed.

If a donor's activism interferes with a professor's performance of their duties or with a student's right to learn--ideas the donor dislikes, then it shouldn't be allowed. That is the dynamic I'm seeing on my campus. Administrators are the conduit for donor interference; their behavior needs to follow the rules.

A professor is under a contract to provide services. A student has an effective contract to receive services from the institution. As far as I know, donors don't have any sort of contract with the institution, beyond honouring any pledge to donate. If a donor decides at some point to discontinue donating, having honoured all pledges previously made, then there's nothing preventing them from doing so.

[Hibush]

A professor is under a contract to provide services. A student has an effective contract to receive services from the institution. As far as I know, donors don't have any sort of contract with the institution, beyond honouring any pledge to donate. If a donor decides at some point to discontinue donating, having honoured all pledges previously made, then there's nothing preventing them from doing so.

The relationships at my school are far more nuanced than that. It would be impossible to manage any role here using such a simplistic view.

[ciao_yall]

A professor is under a contract to provide services. A student has an effective contract to receive services from the institution. As far as I know, donors don't have any sort of contract with the institution, beyond honouring any pledge to donate. If a donor decides at some point to discontinue donating, having honoured all pledges previously made, then there's nothing preventing them from doing so.

The relationships at my school are far more nuanced than that. It would be impossible to manage any role here using such a simplistic view.

Academic freedom, anyone?

[Ruralguy]

Actually, the very large donors usually do have contracts, but that's probably not particularly important.
The main point is that they are free to walk if they think the school is doing the wrong thing (and that can be curricular decisions as well as the high profile political sort of thing we saw this past year) in terms of whatever.
So, the administration then has to think whether the donor(s) is/are worth keeping, and if they are, how do they not run  afoul of academic freedom, and in the case of publics, the 1st amendment. Most schools can't just say "you're fired" to a tenured professor. There has to be some sort of proof they are doing harm to the school or student (or other staff/faculty).

[Hibush]

Most schools can't just say "you're fired" to a tenured professor. There has to be some sort of proof they are doing harm to the school or student (or other staff/faculty).

The infringement can be more insidious. Sending an administrator to listen in on lectures or having a staff member pre-approve a syllabus. Those are clearly prohibited actions at my school. But some of that seems to be happening indirectly.

[kaysixteen]

Can we try to arrive at a definition of 'academic freedom' that we could all accept, and can we arrive at a proper job description of 'college professor', which would sum up what professor conduct is acceptable, and when?

[dismalist]

Academic freedom does not mean: Faculty can do whatever they please! It is also not co-extensive with freedom of speech [First Amendment]. Of particular interest is who can determine what academic freedom entails. This has been determined by courts, not by the AAUP, an interest group. Two paragraphs from Wikipedia are informative, I think:

Academic freedom and free speech rights are not coextensive, although this widely accepted view has been challenged by an "institutionalist" perspective on the First Amendment.[82] Academic freedom involves more than speech rights; for example, it includes the right to determine what is taught in the classroom.[83][84] 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.[85] In practice, academic freedom is protected by institutional rules and regulations, letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, collective bargaining agreements, and academic custom.[86]

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 historically held that academic freedom is a First Amendment right at public institutions.[Note 13] 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.[87][88]

[Hibush]

Of particular interest is who can determine what academic freedom entails. This has been determined by courts, not by the AAUP, an interest group.

Both have an influence, but I think it really gets determined at the school level. At mine, it is an agreement between faculty and administration, codified in the faculty handbook. Interpretations of that text are argued with enthusiasm. I'm at a school where administration really can't butt into the academic activities of faculty, with a very broad definition of what those activities encompass.  At other schools the definition is much tighter, perhaps limited to the subjects one teaches, and to what one does in the classroom.

[dismalist]

Of particular interest is who can determine what academic freedom entails. This has been determined by courts, not by the AAUP, an interest group.

Both have an influence, but I think it really gets determined at the school level. At mine, it is an agreement between faculty and administration, codified in the faculty handbook. Interpretations of that text are argued with enthusiasm. I'm at a school where administration really can't butt into the academic activities of faculty, with a very broad definition of what those activities encompass.  At other schools the definition is much tighter, perhaps limited to the subjects one teaches, and to what one does in the classroom.

Correct. That's what the last sentence of the first paragraph says.

In practice, academic freedom is protected by institutional rules and regulations, letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, collective bargaining agreements, and academic custom.

[marshwiggle]

Can we try to arrive at a definition of 'academic freedom' that we could all accept, and can we arrive at a proper job description of 'college professor', which would sum up what professor conduct is acceptable, and when?

The fact is, for the vast majority of faculty, performing the duties related to teaching don't require informing students of one's political views, religious views, sexual orientation or relationship status, or shoe size. Furthermore, that lack of information does not preclude having a productive, professional relationship with students (and other people at the institution, for that matter).

"Activism" is an attempt to shortcut the process of helping students to analyze and think for themselves and replace it with simply telling students what to think.

[Ruralguy]

Academic freedom is also defined in my Faculty Handbook to be...precisely what the AAUP says it to be (I mean that it just refers directly to the various AAUP statements on it). The trustees have approved this. However, a professor probably could be fired if it is shown that regardless of this, the professors actions are harmful to the school or to students. Functionally, it has to be beyond just "the president stinks." Various actions that undermine the mission or are directly harmful. I doubt that even fairly controversial politics would usually fit the bill, but I could see even some faculty agreeing that a faculty member should be at least reprimanded or punished short of dismissal if what they were doing was intimidating students. I don't mean that someone is being a snowflake and saying they "felt intimidated" because the professor's views happened to be opposite theirs. I mean that the professor is consistently being very aggressively intimidating, and in ways that are not common for the classroom, even for the more generally aggressive professors. I realize that could be a slippery slope, but in general I am agreeing with Dismnalist in the sense that I don't mean professors can do whatever they want, but I am also not saying that any tenured professor can be fired for just about anything because the definitions are so wishy-washy.

[dismalist]

I don't want to pour too much cold water on the idea of academic freedom, because, clearly, it's hard to have scientific advancement without some freedom for research and teaching.

However, academic freedom in the US has a checkered history, or at least, an illegitimate birth. It started off as a single professor's protest at Stanford against Mrs. Stanford, who owned the school, when she wanted this guy fired for being anti-Chinese immigration! [In addition to Stanford, she also owned the Union Pacific Railroad, which wanted to hire Chinese immigrants.] All this led to the creation of the AAUP, whose 1940 statement is quoted with such fondness present day. Sometimes it's best not to acknowledge one's parents.

The idea of independent teaching and research was entrenched at the earliest time by Wilhelm von Humboldt in what's now called the Humboldt University [Berlin] in 1813. He had the permission, encouragement, and finance of Prussia. Modern research universities are copies of this one. What is worth remembering is that the governments that pay for such universities in continental Europe and elsewhere have found ways of controlling appointments to make sure they align with the government in power.

Complete independence, in the sense of "I can do whatever I please" is a chimera. He who pays the piper calls the tune.  But no worries: What keeps research universities productive is not academic freedom, nor tenure, but competition.