The Paradoxical Question of Defining Academic Freedom in Sweezy V. The State of Nh by Wyman Academics presents one of the most controversial issues in higher education. The First Amendment protections afforded to students and educators ensure the quality of higher education. The paradoxical issue of defining academic freedom began in 1957, when the Supreme Court mixed “professional ideology” (Byrne, 1987, p. 256) with the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment. Byrne (1987) states “. . . this paradox should. . . [be] . . . neither collateral nor embarrassing; "academic discourse benefits from the tension between the independence of a researcher's judgment and the university's assessment of his or her professional competence" (p. 258) in Sweezy v. NH State by Wyman. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay By analyzing the procedural history related to both government intrusion, as well as the boundary between academic freedom and institutional authority, this article will create a general road map for avoiding violations of the academic freedom in a public higher education institution. Per Kaplin and Lee (2014), “Whether employed by public or private institutions of higher education, faculty members as citizens are protected by the First Amendment from government censorship and other government actions which undermine the freedoms of speech, press and expression of citizens. association” (p. 275).Procedural history and government intrusionSweezy v. State of NH by Wyman, 354 US 234, 77 S. Ct. 1203, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1311 (1957), petitioner was summoned and testified before the Attorney General regarding his alleged affiliation with the Communist Party. For several hours, the petitioner refused to answer several questions, stating: “. . . he would not answer questions that were not relevant to the subject studied as well as those that transgressed the limits of the First Amendment” (Id. p. 1206). After refusing to answer questions, the petitioner was held in contempt. The Supreme Court recognized an attack on academic freedom. Although case law has advanced over the past 59 years, the Court continues to extol the value of academic freedom without providing a formal definition. Byrne (1987) suggests that "[t]he gross imbalance between praise and rule suggests extreme reluctance or difficulty for a court to conclude that a particular practice constitutes a violation of academic freedom" (p. 257). “The First Amendment’s guarantee of academic freedom rests on the recognition of the vital role in a democracy played by those who guide and train its youth. » 73 ALR6th 281 (originally published in 2012). Academic freedom arises from the First Amendment right to free speech, and while this right is extremely important, the balance between institutional autonomy and academic freedom must be defined narrowly. Issues surrounding academic freedom range from academic discourse to course content development and grading practices. In Keyishian v. Bd. of the Regents of the Univ. of New York State, 385 US 589, 87 S. Ct. 675, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1967), professors at the State University of New York filed a request for declaratory relief and injunctive relief alleging that theadministrative regulations violated constitutional guarantees. Here, the court emphasized that “(p)recision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area that touches so closely on our precious freedoms.” . . (f)or the standards of permissible legal vagueness are strict in the area of freedom of expression. . . First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive; government can only regulate this area with narrow specificity” (Id., p. 604). Freedom of Speech, Expression and ConductIn Franklin v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 172 Cal. Application. 3d 322, 218 Cal. Rptr. 228 (Ct. App. 1985), plaintiff Bruce H. Franklin, an antiwar leader and tenured professor at Stanford University, filed suit against the university after it fired him. Here, the court states that “[a]ny word spoken, in class, in the canteen or on campus, which deviates from the point of view of another person may trigger an argument or cause disturbances. But our Constitution says we have to take that risk. .only expressive conduct that materially disrupts classroom work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others, which is not protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression” (Id. at p. 337). These statements, along with an after-class meeting organized by Bishop to discuss the "Proof of God in Human Physiology" (Id. at 1069), which was scheduled during final exam week, gave rise to complaints from students. In response to the complaints, the university council drafted a memorandum titled "Religious Activities in a Public Institution" which stated: "among those actions that should be discontinued are: 1) the interjection of religious beliefs and/or preferences during teaching periods. and 2) electives where a “Christian perspective” on an academic topic is provided. . . I must also remind you that religious beliefs and/or the strength of a belief cannot be used in decisions regarding the recruitment, admission, or retention of graduate students” (Id. at 1069). In this case, the appeals court recognized the obstacle described as the “First Amendment tightrope” that the University faced. The court states that “[our] nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which has transcendent value for all of us and not just the faculty involved.” . . [t]he vigilant protection of constitutional liberties is nowhere more vital than in the American school community. . . The future of the nation depends on leaders trained through broad exposure to that robust exchange of ideas that uncovers truth from a multitude of languages, [rather than through any sort of authoritative selection” (Id. , p. 1075). The importance of academic freedom cannot be taken into account. However, the Court recognized the importance of academic autonomy by stating that "[t]his Court should honor the traditional reluctance to encroach on the prerogatives of public and local educational institutions" (Id., p. 1075). . Academic freedom is an important safeguard ensuring that the value of education is not diminished by unnecessary or unreasonable restrictions. Here, the Court held that, based on the nature of the speech and the narrowly defined restrictions, the First Amendment right to academic freedom had not been violated. In Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928 (7th Cir. 1972), a substitute teacher at UNIO, a state university filed a complaint under 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging that false statements made by the defendants had resulted in the decision tothe university not to rehire him. Clark, during the period of his temporary employment, emphasized the issue of sex education as an integral part of the health survey course. Here, the court held that although the right to academic freedom “is one of the rights enumerated in the First Amendment…. . . [it's not. . . a license for uncontrolled expression in contradiction with established curricular content and internally destructive of the proper functioning of the institution” (Id., p. 931). Here, the Court rejected Clark's claim because "legitimate state interests may limit a teacher's right to say whatever he or she wants" (Id. at p. 931). Furthermore, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F. 2d 1066, highlights the paradoxical phenomenon described by Byrne (1987). In the case of Bishop v. Aronov, an assistant professor of physical education, filed suit under 42 USC § 1983 in federal district court after a university policy was adopted to regulate the flow of religious speech. Phillip Bishop, the plaintiff/appellant, was employed from 1984 to 1987 by the College of Education at the University of Alabama, working with undergraduate and graduate students. Bishop often referred to his religious belief system during classes, both in a generalized context and when providing detailed philosophical explanations. Bishop was quoted as saying, "[a]fter thinking about it for a long time, I have decided for myself that when I die, I would like to leave behind something more important and more valuable than a pile of technical documents." I think people are important and eternal, neither is paper. I want to invest my time mainly in people. I personally believe that God came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ and that He has something to tell us about life that is crucial to success and happiness” Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F.2d 1066, 1068 (11th Cir. 1991). Parate v. Isibor, 868 F.2d 821 (6th Cir. 1989), the plaintiff in this action filed a civil rights action after his teaching contract at Tennessee State University was not renewed. Parate, was appointed associate professor for the 1982 academic year to teach in the civil engineering department. Pirate's teaching credentials included a bachelor's, master's and doctorate earned in the field of engineering from various universities in Europe and Asia. The Pirate position at Tennessee State University was a permanent contract, renewable annually. Parade presented specific grading guidelines to its students, providing them with the opportunity to document extenuating circumstances to increase their earned grade. In his first class, two students requested a grade change. The first student provided a detailed and documented account of a legal matter, Parate moved this student from a B to an A. Parate refused the second student due to his false medical reports and Parate personally observing him cheat on the final exam. Faced with Parate's refusal, this student appealed to the dean of the engineering school. Edward I Isibor, served as dean of the school of engineering. Both Isibor and the second student were Nigerian. Upon receiving the student's call, Isibor forced Parate to meet with him, at which point Parate was informed that he had to change his grading scale, allowing a grade of 86 percent to be an A. On Parate's refusal, this Isibor insulted, berated, and threatened Parate by stating “that it would be difficult to renew Parate's contract at TSU” (Kaplin and Lee, 2013, p. 269). The next day, Parate met with the associate dean who had prepared a memorandum stating that both students' grades would be upgraded from Bs to A's and thatthe official grading scale would also reflect percentage changes. Parate refused to sign the memorandum because he was about to add a note that these changes were in response to the “directions of the dean and department head at the meeting” (Kaplin and Lee, 2013, p. 269). “Samuchin.” . . explained to Parate that there should be no notes referring to Isibor's instructions. . . [he] warned Parate that if he did not sign the retyped memorandums, Isibor would “spoil” his assessment.” Although Parate ultimately signed the memorandums as requested, he did so under duress and out of fear of retaliation. Over the next two academic years, Isibor and Samuchin, the associate dean, repeatedly acted in retaliation against Parate. They “challenged Parate’s grading criteria in other courses, sent him a letter criticizing his teaching methods; and penalized him with poor performance reviews. . . [They also refused] Parate's requests for permitted business travel and appropriate reimbursements. . . hindered Parate's research efforts and his presentation of papers at professional conferences. . . and recommended non-renewal of Parate’s teaching contract” (Kaplin and Lee, 2013, p. 269). In March 1985, Parate was informed that his tenure-track position would not be renewed. At a meeting with Isibor in September 1985, he was informed that “. . . if Parate's performance improved, renewal of his teaching contract would be considered. Isibor concluded by telling Parate “you must obey and never disobey your dean”” (Kaplin & Lee, 2013, p. 270). In late September and early October 1985, several discriminatory actions were taken by Isibor and Samuchin in retaliation after two other Nigerian students complained about Parate's grading system. Isibor and Samuchin degraded Parate in front of the students, removed him from his teaching position and forced him to take the course he previously taught. Parate was informed shortly after that his tenure-track position would not be renewed. Parate brought this action under 42 USC § 1983, alleging a violation of his right to academic freedom under First Amendment protections. Likewise, in Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69, 78 (3d Cir. 2001), 3rd Circuit United States Court of Appeals discusses the application of academic freedom to grading practices and procedures. In Brown v. Armenti, plaintiff Robert Brown, a professor employed for 28 years at the University of California, Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit claiming he was wrongfully terminated after refusing to change a grade attributed to one of his students. The plaintiff alleged that the retaliation violated his right to academic freedom under the First Amendment. Here, the court applied the standard adopted in Pickering v. Board of Education and Tinker v. Des Moines, stating that "fundamentally, [f]reedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident." No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy played by those who guide and train our youth. Imposing a straitjacket on the intellectual leaders of our colleges and universities would jeopardize the future of our nation” (id. at p. 74). Brown, defines the rights of a professor inside the classroom where the professor essentially puts himself in the place of the University "performing one of the functions inherent in the four essential freedoms of universities, choosing who can teach , what can be taught, how it must be taught and who can be admitted to study” (Id., p. 75). Brown differs from Parate in.

Essay / The Paradoxical Question of Defining Academic Freedom in Sweezy V. The State of Nh by Wyman Academics presents one of the most controversial issues in higher education. The First Amendment protections afforded to students and educators ensure the quality of higher education. The paradoxical issue of defining academic freedom began in 1957, when the Supreme Court mixed “professional ideology” (Byrne, 1987, p. 256) with the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment. Byrne (1987) states “. . . this paradox should. . . [be] . . . neither collateral nor embarrassing; "academic discourse benefits from the tension between the independence of a researcher's judgment and the university's assessment of his or her professional competence" (p. 258) in Sweezy v. NH State by Wyman. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay By analyzing the procedural history related to both government intrusion, as well as the boundary between academic freedom and institutional authority, this article will create a general road map for avoiding violations of the academic freedom in a public higher education institution. Per Kaplin and Lee (2014), “Whether employed by public or private institutions of higher education, faculty members as citizens are protected by the First Amendment from government censorship and other government actions which undermine the freedoms of speech, press and expression of citizens. association” (p. 275).Procedural history and government intrusionSweezy v. State of NH by Wyman, 354 US 234, 77 S. Ct. 1203, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1311 (1957), petitioner was summoned and testified before the Attorney General regarding his alleged affiliation with the Communist Party. For several hours, the petitioner refused to answer several questions, stating: “. . . he would not answer questions that were not relevant to the subject studied as well as those that transgressed the limits of the First Amendment” (Id. p. 1206). After refusing to answer questions, the petitioner was held in contempt. The Supreme Court recognized an attack on academic freedom. Although case law has advanced over the past 59 years, the Court continues to extol the value of academic freedom without providing a formal definition. Byrne (1987) suggests that "[t]he gross imbalance between praise and rule suggests extreme reluctance or difficulty for a court to conclude that a particular practice constitutes a violation of academic freedom" (p. 257). “The First Amendment’s guarantee of academic freedom rests on the recognition of the vital role in a democracy played by those who guide and train its youth. » 73 ALR6th 281 (originally published in 2012). Academic freedom arises from the First Amendment right to free speech, and while this right is extremely important, the balance between institutional autonomy and academic freedom must be defined narrowly. Issues surrounding academic freedom range from academic discourse to course content development and grading practices. In Keyishian v. Bd. of the Regents of the Univ. of New York State, 385 US 589, 87 S. Ct. 675, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1967), professors at the State University of New York filed a request for declaratory relief and injunctive relief alleging that theadministrative regulations violated constitutional guarantees. Here, the court emphasized that “(p)recision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area that touches so closely on our precious freedoms.” . . (f)or the standards of permissible legal vagueness are strict in the area of freedom of expression. . . First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive; government can only regulate this area with narrow specificity” (Id., p. 604). Freedom of Speech, Expression and ConductIn Franklin v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 172 Cal. Application. 3d 322, 218 Cal. Rptr. 228 (Ct. App. 1985), plaintiff Bruce H. Franklin, an antiwar leader and tenured professor at Stanford University, filed suit against the university after it fired him. Here, the court states that “[a]ny word spoken, in class, in the canteen or on campus, which deviates from the point of view of another person may trigger an argument or cause disturbances. But our Constitution says we have to take that risk. .only expressive conduct that materially disrupts classroom work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others, which is not protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression” (Id. at p. 337). These statements, along with an after-class meeting organized by Bishop to discuss the "Proof of God in Human Physiology" (Id. at 1069), which was scheduled during final exam week, gave rise to complaints from students. In response to the complaints, the university council drafted a memorandum titled "Religious Activities in a Public Institution" which stated: "among those actions that should be discontinued are: 1) the interjection of religious beliefs and/or preferences during teaching periods. and 2) electives where a “Christian perspective” on an academic topic is provided. . . I must also remind you that religious beliefs and/or the strength of a belief cannot be used in decisions regarding the recruitment, admission, or retention of graduate students” (Id. at 1069). In this case, the appeals court recognized the obstacle described as the “First Amendment tightrope” that the University faced. The court states that “[our] nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which has transcendent value for all of us and not just the faculty involved.” . . [t]he vigilant protection of constitutional liberties is nowhere more vital than in the American school community. . . The future of the nation depends on leaders trained through broad exposure to that robust exchange of ideas that uncovers truth from a multitude of languages, [rather than through any sort of authoritative selection” (Id. , p. 1075). The importance of academic freedom cannot be taken into account. However, the Court recognized the importance of academic autonomy by stating that "[t]his Court should honor the traditional reluctance to encroach on the prerogatives of public and local educational institutions" (Id., p. 1075). . Academic freedom is an important safeguard ensuring that the value of education is not diminished by unnecessary or unreasonable restrictions. Here, the Court held that, based on the nature of the speech and the narrowly defined restrictions, the First Amendment right to academic freedom had not been violated. In Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928 (7th Cir. 1972), a substitute teacher at UNIO, a state university filed a complaint under 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging that false statements made by the defendants had resulted in the decision tothe university not to rehire him. Clark, during the period of his temporary employment, emphasized the issue of sex education as an integral part of the health survey course. Here, the court held that although the right to academic freedom “is one of the rights enumerated in the First Amendment…. . . [it's not. . . a license for uncontrolled expression in contradiction with established curricular content and internally destructive of the proper functioning of the institution” (Id., p. 931). Here, the Court rejected Clark's claim because "legitimate state interests may limit a teacher's right to say whatever he or she wants" (Id. at p. 931). Furthermore, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F. 2d 1066, highlights the paradoxical phenomenon described by Byrne (1987). In the case of Bishop v. Aronov, an assistant professor of physical education, filed suit under 42 USC § 1983 in federal district court after a university policy was adopted to regulate the flow of religious speech. Phillip Bishop, the plaintiff/appellant, was employed from 1984 to 1987 by the College of Education at the University of Alabama, working with undergraduate and graduate students. Bishop often referred to his religious belief system during classes, both in a generalized context and when providing detailed philosophical explanations. Bishop was quoted as saying, "[a]fter thinking about it for a long time, I have decided for myself that when I die, I would like to leave behind something more important and more valuable than a pile of technical documents." I think people are important and eternal, neither is paper. I want to invest my time mainly in people. I personally believe that God came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ and that He has something to tell us about life that is crucial to success and happiness” Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F.2d 1066, 1068 (11th Cir. 1991). Parate v. Isibor, 868 F.2d 821 (6th Cir. 1989), the plaintiff in this action filed a civil rights action after his teaching contract at Tennessee State University was not renewed. Parate, was appointed associate professor for the 1982 academic year to teach in the civil engineering department. Pirate's teaching credentials included a bachelor's, master's and doctorate earned in the field of engineering from various universities in Europe and Asia. The Pirate position at Tennessee State University was a permanent contract, renewable annually. Parade presented specific grading guidelines to its students, providing them with the opportunity to document extenuating circumstances to increase their earned grade. In his first class, two students requested a grade change. The first student provided a detailed and documented account of a legal matter, Parate moved this student from a B to an A. Parate refused the second student due to his false medical reports and Parate personally observing him cheat on the final exam. Faced with Parate's refusal, this student appealed to the dean of the engineering school. Edward I Isibor, served as dean of the school of engineering. Both Isibor and the second student were Nigerian. Upon receiving the student's call, Isibor forced Parate to meet with him, at which point Parate was informed that he had to change his grading scale, allowing a grade of 86 percent to be an A. On Parate's refusal, this Isibor insulted, berated, and threatened Parate by stating “that it would be difficult to renew Parate's contract at TSU” (Kaplin and Lee, 2013, p. 269). The next day, Parate met with the associate dean who had prepared a memorandum stating that both students' grades would be upgraded from Bs to A's and thatthe official grading scale would also reflect percentage changes. Parate refused to sign the memorandum because he was about to add a note that these changes were in response to the “directions of the dean and department head at the meeting” (Kaplin and Lee, 2013, p. 269). “Samuchin.” . . explained to Parate that there should be no notes referring to Isibor's instructions. . . [he] warned Parate that if he did not sign the retyped memorandums, Isibor would “spoil” his assessment.” Although Parate ultimately signed the memorandums as requested, he did so under duress and out of fear of retaliation. Over the next two academic years, Isibor and Samuchin, the associate dean, repeatedly acted in retaliation against Parate. They “challenged Parate’s grading criteria in other courses, sent him a letter criticizing his teaching methods; and penalized him with poor performance reviews. . . [They also refused] Parate's requests for permitted business travel and appropriate reimbursements. . . hindered Parate's research efforts and his presentation of papers at professional conferences. . . and recommended non-renewal of Parate’s teaching contract” (Kaplin and Lee, 2013, p. 269). In March 1985, Parate was informed that his tenure-track position would not be renewed. At a meeting with Isibor in September 1985, he was informed that “. . . if Parate's performance improved, renewal of his teaching contract would be considered. Isibor concluded by telling Parate “you must obey and never disobey your dean”” (Kaplin & Lee, 2013, p. 270). In late September and early October 1985, several discriminatory actions were taken by Isibor and Samuchin in retaliation after two other Nigerian students complained about Parate's grading system. Isibor and Samuchin degraded Parate in front of the students, removed him from his teaching position and forced him to take the course he previously taught. Parate was informed shortly after that his tenure-track position would not be renewed. Parate brought this action under 42 USC § 1983, alleging a violation of his right to academic freedom under First Amendment protections. Likewise, in Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69, 78 (3d Cir. 2001), 3rd Circuit United States Court of Appeals discusses the application of academic freedom to grading practices and procedures. In Brown v. Armenti, plaintiff Robert Brown, a professor employed for 28 years at the University of California, Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit claiming he was wrongfully terminated after refusing to change a grade attributed to one of his students. The plaintiff alleged that the retaliation violated his right to academic freedom under the First Amendment. Here, the court applied the standard adopted in Pickering v. Board of Education and Tinker v. Des Moines, stating that "fundamentally, [f]reedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident." No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy played by those who guide and train our youth. Imposing a straitjacket on the intellectual leaders of our colleges and universities would jeopardize the future of our nation” (id. at p. 74). Brown, defines the rights of a professor inside the classroom where the professor essentially puts himself in the place of the University "performing one of the functions inherent in the four essential freedoms of universities, choosing who can teach , what can be taught, how it must be taught and who can be admitted to study” (Id., p. 75). Brown differs from Parate in.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch