Nineenth century allegorical statue of the Congress Column, Belgium depicting Freedom of Education
Freedom of education is the right for parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religious and other views, allowing groups to be able to educate children without being impeded by the nation state.
The European forum for freedom in education was formed in 1989 and has 69 members across 13 countries. Their official demands include a need for autonomy to students and teachers. It also establishes the importance of diversity in education, to allow parents the choice of sending their child to a school that aligns with their views.
The Netherlands
In
the Netherlands, a political battle raged throughout the nineteenth
century over the issue of the state monopoly on tuition-free education.
It was opposed under the banner of "Freedom of Education" and the Separation of Church and State. The Dutch called it "De Schoolstrijd"
(The Battle of the Schools). The Dutch solution was the separation of
school and state by funding all schools equally, both public and private from 1917. The freedom of education resulted in the establishment of many new school types in the total spectrum of education in the Netherlands. New methods of education were introduced inspired by ideals on education (like those of Maria Montessori, Rudolf Steiner, Jenaplan).
Schools were also funded based on religion. After the influx of workers
from Islamic countries, Islamic schools were introduced. In 2003, in
total 35 Islamic schools were in operation. However, a study in 2015 showed that the introduction of new schools for secondary education
appeared difficult. Local communities, including existing local
schools, resisted the introduction of new schools, for instance by
delaying the procedure to find a location for a new school.
Presently, freedom to teach religion in schools is a protected
right, both for individuals or groups to teach, and for an individual to
learn. While this plainly means children, it can also be interpreted to
apply to parents' rights to have their valued beliefs or principles
taught to the child.
There have been issues around limiting the abilities of religious
schools within the Netherlands. This includes serious threats to orthodox Jewish and Islamic schools'
ability to enjoy this freedom. Following a general change in attitudes
within the Netherlands there has been controversy surrounding balancing
the freedom of education with the other rights of non-discrimination
that might be seen, particularly towards women in many conservative
Islamic schools.
Most religious schools in the Netherlands have also since stopped
acting within their own subset of institutions, thus lessening their
power within the education system. Combined with the growth in
diversity, and an overriding importance of non-discrimination, the
ability for religious groups with conservative views in the Netherlands
to educate their children in the manner that they were has been
tarnished.
Situation in Europe (2013)
A University of Amsterdam
study of 2013 ranked six member states by their parallel education (the
ability to voluntary create a religious denomination which can be
aided/impeded through funding) to give an indication of the freedom of
groups and individuals to instill their religious beliefs through
education. The conclusions are listed below.
Denmark
Denmark
achieved a high rating. Denmark’s constitution requires a duty of
education, but not one aimed at the school. This creates an option for private education or home-school.
Private schools receive a subsidy that covers approximately 3/4 of the
costs. Over the last ten years, Denmark has raised its level of
supervision of these schools and the obligations on the schools to
regulate themselves.
The Netherlands
The Netherlands achieved a high rating; religious schools in the Netherlands which are private are funded equally to public schools
and are subject to the same regulations. Well over half of the
Netherlands' schools are built on the grounds of a religion. The Dutch constitution (article 23)
protects freedom of education and means the government must hold
private and state schools equally. While private schools need to employ
proper teachers, they may select their teachers or pupils based on their
spiritual beliefs or values.
Ireland
Ireland
received a high rating. 95% of primary and 57% of secondary Irish
schools are denominational, though this number is decreasing. Education
is supported predominantly by Catholic but also Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim institutions and trusts. There are also Irish language
schools for parents who want to teach their children through the
national language, as a vast majority of the population of Ireland
speaks English. Compared with the rest of the continent, religious
educational groups have had strong levels of freedom, and have been able
to establish schools that receive considerable State funding.
Italy
Italy
received a medium rating. Religious schools in Italy are private, which
can request to become treated like public schools. If they achieve
this, they will be under the same rules as public schools. They can
receive funding, but in most successful instances it was only Catholic
schools managed by Catholic groups, the dominant religion in the
country.
Spain
Spain
received a medium rating. In theory Spain's constitution protects the
right to create a school based upon a certain belief. However, in
practice, establishing schools for minority groups
can be problematic mostly due to the availability of resources. Fewer
than ten schools in the country actually educate religious minority
groups.
Sweden
Sweden
received a high rating. The freedom of Swedish private schools is equal
to that of state schools. While religious schools can select their own
staff or students, the national regulations clearly state what can and
cannot be omitted from teaching, such as gender.
Rules surrounding dress or behaviour are allowed provided they comply
within the general law. The ability to teach a notably Islamic
curriculum is restricted, however, which meant that the rating of Sweden
came close to being downgraded to medium.
North America
United States
Around 17% of schools in the United States are faith-based. However, America does not offer families any public support to attend such schools routinely.
Public schools are required by certain state laws to educate
their students in a secular manner so as not to endorse any specific
religion. However, most public schools in the US have become more
responsive to a variety of dietary requirements, such as nut-free or
vegetarian options, and children are allowed to be exempt from
activities that would normally be inconsistent with their religious
teachings.
However, despite there being no constitutional pressures on the
freedom of parents to choose education, the American society still
opposes religious education
in some states. Negative news reporting combined with the general
attitude of American citizens places pressure upon parents who want to
send their children to religious private schools. Though private schools
are a great source of religious education for those who do not share
the same views and opinions, joining a private school may not be the
same option.
South America
Religious freedom of schools is supported through the Constitution of many South American countries. In Chile,
funds are provided to both state and private schools at all ages. There
is no non-Catholic teaching in most schools within this region,
however. While there is still some frequency of religious discrimination in South America, the legal and societal restrictions have been overcome through a combination of influence by the Vatican, the spread of Protestantism
and Constitutional change. Freedom of education through a belief
outside the Christian faith still remains a contested issue throughout
South America.
Africa
The South African
Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms section 15 allows for
observance of religious observances in State or private schools,
provided they are compliant with other laws.
Australia
There is legal support for free and open religious education within the Australian public schooling system,
but its actual application is very rare. However, there is also
support for a "confessional" method of religious education which has
been commonplace since the 19th century. This method lets churches visit
to give religious lessons in schools.There are also many Islamic and Jewish schools throughout the country, with a strong presence in New South Wales and Victoria. The Australian government provides funding to private schools, over half of which are faith based.
Asia
Israel
Israel currently offers a growing number of Haredi
and Arab schools, as well as special private schools that reflect
certain beliefs of parents, or are based around a foreign country
curriculum, for example, Jerusalem American International School.
Despite this, the success rate of Haredi students at the national level
is significantly low. Israel also operates an Arab education system for
their minority, including lessons on their own culture and history to
support Arab parents. However, there have been allegations of better
funding directed towards the Jewish education system. One report
suggested that the Israeli government spends $192 per year on each Arab student, compared to $1,100 per Jewish student.
A 2001 Human Rights Watch report claimed Arab school students were
getting an inferior education from fewer resources and poorly
constructed institutions.
Arab countries
Women
in the Arab world may still be denied equality of opportunity, although
their disempowerment is a critical factor crippling the markets of the
Arab nations to return to the first pitch of global leaders in star
commerce, teenage learning and pop culture, according to a new United
States-sponsored report in 2012. Education in the Arab World
has made progress over the past decade. However, the quality of
education remains poor, many children still leave primary education
prematurely and illiteracy rates are relatively high, according to a new
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) report.
Educational and Academic Freedom
The Right to Education initiative described educational freedom as the "liberty
of parents to ascertain religious as well as moral education of their
children in accordance with their beliefs to choose schools aside from
public institutions."
The State must respect this freedom within public education.
Educational freedom includes the right of all people to institute and
guide institutions that adhere to the State’s minimum standards in
learning. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (General
Comment 13) stipulates that the State must guarantee this right does
not cause excessive disparities of educational opportunity for certain
groups in society.
Academic freedom pertains to the autonomy of academic community members
to practice, develop, and communicate knowledge and ideas through
research, teaching, dialogue, documentation, production, and writing
either jointly or individually. Academic freedom calls for the
independence of higher education entities.
Freedom in education indicates the need for parents to become
accountable for the education of their children. Governments do not
possess authority or capability to force families and individuals or
finance the education of students directly or indirectly.
Academic freedom is a moral and legal concept expressing 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. While the core of academic freedom covers
scholars acting in an academic capacity - as teachers or researchers
expressing strictly scholarly viewpoints -, an expansive interpretation
extends these occupational safeguards to scholars' speech on matters
outside their professional expertise. It is a type of freedom of speech.
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 matters that are
unrelated to the subject discussed. 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. 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.
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 (Leiden University, founded in 1575, birthplace of the modern concept),
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 and sociology. The trend toward subjugating science to the interests of the state also had proponents in the West, including the influential MarxistJohn 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
AFAF (Academics For Academic Freedom) of the United Kingdom
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:
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
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.
For academic staff
The
concept of academic freedom as a right of faculty members is an
established part of most legal systems. While in the United States the
constitutional protection of academic freedom derives from the guarantee
of free speech under the First Amendment,
the constitutions of other countries (particularly in civil law
systems) typically grant a separate right to free learning, teaching,
and research.
A survey of academics in Canada, the United Kingdom and the
United States found that a significant proportion of academics
discriminate against conservatives in hiring, promotion, grants and
publications. Although only one out of ten academics would support the
dismissal of controversial colleagues, few would actively oppose it,
particularly among younger faculty and doctoral students. Most
conservative academics admit to self-censorship
in research and teaching. Finally, the great majority of conservative
graduate students report feeling deterred from pursuing an academic
career.
Concerns have been raised of increased threats to academic
freedom in recent years, including a chilling climate constraining
discussions of sex and gender identity.
Canada
During the interwar years (cir. 1919–1939) Canadian academics were
informally expected to be apolitical, lest they bring trouble to their
respective universities which, at the time, were very much dependent
upon provincial government grants. As well, many Canadian academics of
the time considered their position to be remote from the world of
politics and felt they had no place getting involved in political
issues. However, with the increase of socialist activity in Canada
during the Great Depression, due to the rise of social gospel
ideology, some left-wing academics began taking active part in
contemporary political issues outside the university. Thus, individuals
such as Frank H. Underhill at the University of Toronto and other members or affiliates with the League for Social Reconstruction
or the socialist movement in Canada who held academic positions, began
to find themselves in precarious positions with their university
employers. Frank H. Underhill, for example, faced criticism from within
and without academia and near expulsion from his university position for
his public political comments and his involvement with the League for
Social Reconstruction and the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation. According to Michiel Horn this era marked,
... a relaxation of the unwritten
controls under which many Canadian professors had previously worked. The
nature of the institutions, natural caution and professional
pre-occupation had before the Depression inhibited the professoriate.
None of these conditions changed quickly, but even at the provincial
universities there were brave souls in the 1930s who claimed, with
varying success, the right publicly to discuss controversial subjects
and express opinions about them.
United Kingdom
The Robbins Report on Higher Education,
commissioned by the British government and published in 1963, devoted a
full chapter, Chapter XVI, to Academic freedom and its scope. This
gives a detailed discussion of the importance attached both to freedom
of individual academics and of the institution itself. In a world, both
then and now, where illiberal governments are all too ready to attack
freedom of expression, the Robbins committee saw the (then) statutory
protection given to academic freedom as giving some protection for
society as a whole from any temptation to mount such attacks.
When Margaret Thatcher's government sought to remove many of the
statutory protections of academic freedom which Robbins had regarded as
so important, she was partly frustrated by a hostile amendment to her
bill in the House of Lords. This incorporated into what became the 1988
Education Reform Act, the legal right of academics in the UK 'to
question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and
controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in
jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have'.
These principles of academic freedom are thus articulated in the
statutes of most UK universities. Concerns have been raised regarding
threats to academic freedom in the UK, including the harassment of
feminist academics. In response to such concerns, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued guidance.
In 2016 the Warden of Wadham College Oxford, a lawyer previously
Director of Public Prosecutions, pointed out that the Conservative
government's anti-terrorism "Prevent" strategy legislation has placed on
universities 'a specific enforceable duty ... to prevent the expression
of views that are otherwise entirely compatible with the criminal law'.
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". The nomination and promotion of professors is largely done through a process of peer review rather than through normal administrative procedures.
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.
Mauritius
In
Mauritius the academic staff have the following rights, which are stated
in the Chapter II Constitution of Mauritius: the protection of Freedom
of Conscience, Protection of Freedom of Expression, Protection of
Freedom of Assembly and Association, Protection of Freedom to Establish
schools and the Protection from Discrimination. In a 2012 paper on the University of Mauritius
the author states that although there are no records of abuse of human
rights or freedom of the state "subtle threats to freedom of expression
do exist, especially with regard to criticisms of ruling political
parties and their leaders as well as religious groups." The government of Mauritius endorses the practice of academic freedom in the tertiary institutions of the country. Academic freedom became a public issue in May 2009 when the University of Mauritius
spoke out against the previous vice chancellor Professor I. Fagoonee,
who had forwarded a circular sent by the Ministry of Education to
academics.
This circular targeted public officers and required them to consult
their superiors before speaking to the press. According to the paper,
academics were annoyed by the fact that the vice chancellor had endorsed
the circular by sending it to them when it was addressed to public
officers.
In an interview the vice- chancellor stated that while academics were
free to speak to the press they should not compromise university policy
or government policy. An academic spoke to the prime minister and the issue was eventually taken up to parliament. The vice chancellor was then required to step down. In return the government publicly endorsed the practice of academic freedom.
The institutional bureaucracy and the dependence on the state for
funds has restricted the freedom of academics to criticize government
policy. An interview with Dr. Kasenally an educator at the University of Mauritius expresses her views on academic freedom in the university. The professor states that in 1970s to 1980s the university was at the forefront of debates. But in the 1990s the university stepped away from controversial debates. In 1986, the rights of academics to engage in politics was removed to curtail academic freedom. Academics at the University of Mauritius
have thus been encouraged to not express their views or ideas
especially if the views oppose those of the management or government.
While there have been no cases of arrests or extreme detention of
academics, there is a fear that it would hinder their career progress
especially at the level of a promotion thus, the academics try to avoid
participating in controversial debates.
Netherlands
In the Netherlands the academic freedom is limited. In November 1985 the Dutch Ministry of Education published a policy paper titled Higher Education: Autonomy and Quality.
This paper had a proposal that steered away from traditional education
and informed that the future of higher education sector should not be
regulated by the central government.
In 1992 the Law of Higher Education and Research (Wet op het hoger
onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek, article 1.6) was published and
became effective in 1993. However, this law governs only certain institutions.
Furthermore, the above provision is part of an ordinary statute and
lacks constitutional status, so it can be changed anytime by a simple
majority in Parliament.
Philippines
The 1987 Philippine Constitution states that, "Academic Freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning." 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. 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.
South Africa
The South African Constitution of 1996 offers protection of academic freedom and the freedom of scholarly research. Academic freedom became a main principle for higher education by 1997.
Three main threats are believed to jeopardize academic freedom:
government regulations, excessive influence of private sector sponsor on
a university, and limitations of freedom of speech in universities.
There have been an abundance of scandals over the restricted academic freedom at a number of universities in South Africa. The University of KwaZulu-Natal received fame over its restricted academic freedom and the scandal that occurred in 2007.
In this scandal a sociology lecturer, Fazel Khan was fired in April
2007 for "bringing the university into disrepute" after he released
information to the news media.
According to Khan he had been airbrushed from a photograph in a campus
publication because of his participation in a staff strike last
February.
In light of this scandal the South African Council on Higher Education
released a report stating that the state is influencing academic
freedom. In particular, public universities are more susceptible to political pressure because they receive funds from the public.
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.
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). These principles state that "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject."
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". The Principles have only the character of private pronouncements, not that of binding law.
Seven 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 these same
institutions. The AAUP does not always agree with the regional
accrediting bodies on the standards of protection of academic freedom
and tenure.
The AAUP lists (censures) those colleges and universities which it has
found, after its own investigations, to violate these principles. There is some case law in the United States that holds that teachers are limited in their academic freedom.
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.
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. 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." The court relied on mandatory precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire and a case from the fourth circuit court of appeals. The Stronach court also relied on persuasive cases from several circuits of the courts of appeals, including the first, third, and seventh
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. The Stronach case has gotten significant attention in the academic community as an important precedent.
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.
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.
In practice, academic freedom is protected by institutional rules and
regulations, letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, collective
bargaining agreements, and academic custom.
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. 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.
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, 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.
The American Association of University Professors has reaffirmed its
opposition to these bills, including any portrayal of creationism as a
scientifically credible alternative and any misrepresentation of
evolution as scientifically controversial. As of June 2008, only the Louisiana bill has been successfully passed into law.
Communism
In the 20th century and particularly the 1950s during McCarthyism, there was much public date in print on Communism's role in academic freedom, e.g., Sidney Hook's Heresy, Yes–Conspiracy, No and Whittaker Chambers' "Is Academic Freedom in Danger?" among many other books and articles.
Democratic Party Platform
Since 2014, many academics, including Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier, and American Mathematical Society Vice President Abigail Thompson
have noted that academics are required to express support for specific
political beliefs in the Democratic Party Platform, especially about
"diversity", and are discouraged from voicing opposition through subtle
self-censorship, as well as explicit promotion, hiring, and firing.
China
Academics have noted an incentive not to express 'incorrect' opinions about issues sensitive to the China. These efforts have been effective in causing academics to self-censor and shift academic discourse.
"Academic bill of rights"
Students for Academic Freedom (SAF) was founded and is sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center to advocate against 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. SAF 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.
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:
students and faculty will not be favored or disfavored because of their political views or religious beliefs;
the humanities and social sciences, in particular, will expose their
students to a variety of sources and viewpoints, and not present one
viewpoint as certain and settled truth;
campus publications and invited speakers will not be harassed, abused, or otherwise obstructed;
academic institutions and professional societies will adopt a neutral attitude in matters of politics, ideology or religion.
Opponents argue 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 argue 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."
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."
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 academics 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. Several of these specific cases are also
the foundations for later legislation.
The Lane Rebels
In the early 1830s, students at the Lane Theological Seminary, in Cincinnati, sponsored a series of debates lasting 18 days. The topic was the American Colonization Society's project of sending free blacks to (not "back to") Africa, specifically Liberia,
and opposing freeing slaves unless they agreed to leave the United
States immediately. The Society, whose founders and officers were
Southern slaveowners, provided funding for existing free blacks to
relocate to Liberia, believing that free blacks caused unrest among the
slaves, and that the United States was and should remain a white
country. (Blacks were not citizens until the ratification of the 14th Amendment
in 1868.) The winner of the debate was the rejection of the Society's
plan, which at best only helped a few thousand, in favor of abolitionism: the immediate, complete, and uncompensated freeing of all slaves.
The trustees of the Seminary, fearing a repeat of the anti-abolitionist Cincinnati riots of 1829,
prohibited any further "off-topic" discussions", overruling the faculty
in the process. As a result, the vast majority of the student body left
Lane (the "Lane Rebels") to become the initial class of the new Oberlin Collegiate Institute.
They first obtained a written guarantee from the Oberlin trustees that
there would be no limits on discourse, and that the faculty, not the
trustees, would control the internal affairs of the school.
The Bassett Affair at Duke University
The Bassett Affair at Duke University in North Carolina in the early 20th century was an important event in the history of academic freedom. In October 1903, Professor John Spencer Bassett publicly praised Booker T. Washington
and drew attention to the racism and white supremacist behavior of the
Democratic party. Many media reports castigated Bassett, and several
major newspapers published opinion pieces attacking him and demanding
his termination. On December 1, 1903, the entire faculty of the college
threatened to resign en masse if the board gave in to political pressures and asked Bassett to resign.
He resigned after "parents were urged to withdraw their children from
the college and churchmen were encouraged not to recommend the college
to perspective students." President Teddy Roosevelt later praised Bassett for his willingness to express the truth as he saw it.
Professor Mayer and DeGraff of The University of Missouri
In 1929, Experimental Psychology Professor Max Friedrich Meyer and Sociology Assistant Professor Harmon O. DeGraff were dismissed from their positions at the University of Missouri for advising student Orval Hobart Mowrer
regarding distribution of a questionnaire which inquired about
attitudes towards partners' sexual tendencies, modern views of marriage,
divorce, extramarital sexual relations, and cohabitation. The university was subsequently censured by the American Association of University Professors in an early case regarding academic freedom due a tenured professor.
Professor Rice of Rollins College
In a famous case investigated by the American Association of University Professors, President Hamilton Holt of Rollins College in March 1933 fired John Andrew Rice,
an atheist scholar and unorthodox teacher, whom Holt had hired, along
with three other "golden personalities", in his push to put Rollins on
the cutting edge of innovative education. Holt then required all
professors to make a "loyalty pledge" to keep their jobs. The American
Association of University Professors censured Rollins. Rice and the
three other "golden personalities", who were all dismissed for refusing
to make the loyalty pledge, founded Black Mountain College.
In 2006, Lawrence Summers,
while president of Harvard University, led a discussion that was
intended to identify the reasons why fewer women chose to study science
and mathematics at advanced levels. He suggested that the possibility of intrinsic gender differences in terms of talent for science and mathematics should be explored. He became the target of considerable public backlash. His critics were, in turn, accused of attempting to suppress academic freedom.
Due to the adverse reception to his comments, he resigned after a
five-year tenure. Another significant factor of his resignation was
several votes of no-confidence placed by the deans of schools, notably
multiple professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
In 2006 trade union leader and sociologist Fazel Khan was fired from the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa after taking a leadership role in a strike.
In 2008 international concern was also expressed at attempts to
discipline two other academics at the same university – Nithiya Chetty
and John van der Berg – for expressing concern about academic freedom at
the university.
Author J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University
J. Michael Bailey wrote a popular science-style book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, which promotes Ray Blanchard's theory that trans women are motivated by sexuality, and dismisses the "woman trapped in a man's body"
concept of transsexuality. In 2007 in an effort to discredit his book,
some activists filed formal complaints with Northwestern University
accusing Bailey of conducting regulated human research. They also filed a complaint with Illinois state regulators, requesting that they investigate Bailey for practicing psychology without a license. Regulators dismissed the complaint. Other academics have also accused him of sexual misconduct.
Professor Li-Ann of New York University School of Law
In 2009 Thio Li-ann withdrew from an appointment at New York University School of Law
after controversy erupted about some anti-gay remarks she had made,
prompting a discussion of academic freedom within the law school. Subsequently, Li-ann was asked to step down from her position in the NYU Law School.
Professor Robinson of the University of California at Santa Barbara
In 2009 the University of California at Santa Barbara charged William I. Robinson with antisemitism
after he circulated an email to his class containing photographs and
paragraphs of the Holocaust juxtaposed to those of the Gaza Strip.
Robinson was fired from the university, but after charges were dropped
after a worldwide campaign against the management of the university.
The Diliman Affair of the University of the Philippines
The
University of the Philippines at Diliman affair where controversy
erupted after Professor Gerardo A. Agulto of the College of Business
Administration was sued by MBA graduate student Chanda R. Shahani for a
nominal amount in damages for failing him several times in the Strategic
Management portion of the Comprehensive Examination. Agulto refused to
give a detailed basis for his grades and instead invoked Academic
Freedom while Shahani argued in court that Academic Freedom could not be
invoked without a rational basis in grading a student.
Professor Salaita of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Professor
David Guth of Kansas University was persecuted by the Kansas Board of
Regents due to his tweet, from a personal account linked to the
university, regarding the shootings which stated, "#NavyYardShooting The
blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and
daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you."
Following the controversial comments, Kansas University suspended, but
ultimately allowed him to come back. Because of this incident and the
moral qualms it raised, the Kansas Board of Regents passed a new policy
regarding social media. This new legislature allowed universities to
discipline or terminate employees who used social media in ways
"contrary to the best interests of the university."
Regulation is the management of complex systems according to a set of rules and trends. In systems theory, these types of rules exist in various fields of biology and society, but the term has slightly different meanings according to context. For example:
in psychology, self-regulation theory is the study of how individuals regulate their thoughts and behaviors to reach goals.
Social
Regulation in the social, political, psychological, and economic domains can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, contractual obligations (for example, contracts between insurers and their insureds), self-regulation in psychology, social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation, third-party regulation, certification, accreditation or market regulation.
State-mandated regulation is government intervention in the private market in an attempt to implement policy and produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, ranging from consumer protection to faster growth or technological advancement.
The regulations may prescribe or proscribe conduct
("command-and-control" regulation), calibrate incentives ("incentive"
regulation), or change preferences ("preferences shaping" regulation).
Common examples of regulation include limits on environmental pollution , laws against child labor or other employment regulations, minimum wages
laws, regulations requiring truthful labelling of the ingredients in
food and drugs, and food and drug safety regulations establishing
minimum standards of testing and quality for what can be sold, and
zoning and development approvals regulation. Much less common are controls on market entry, or price regulation.
One critical question in regulation is whether the regulator or
government has sufficient information to make ex-ante regulation more
efficient than ex-post liability for harm and whether industry
self-regulation might be preferable. The economics of imposing or removing regulations relating to markets is analysed in empirical legal studies, law and economics, political science, environmental science, health economics, and regulatory economics.
Power to regulate should include the power to enforce regulatory
decisions. Monitoring is an important tool used by national regulatory
authorities in carrying out the regulated activities.
In some countries (in particular the Scandinavian countries)
industrial relations are to a very high degree regulated by the labour
market parties themselves (self-regulation) in contrast to state
regulation of minimum wages etc.
Reasons
Regulations may create costs as well as benefits and may produce unintended reactivity effects, such as defensive practice. Efficient regulations can be defined as those where total benefits exceed total costs.
Regulations can be advocated for a variety of reasons, including
Interest group
transfers - regulation that results from efforts by self-interest
groups to redistribute wealth in their favor, which may be disguised as
one or more of the justifications above.
The study of formal (legal or official) and informal (extra-legal or
unofficial) regulation constitutes one of the central concerns of the sociology of law.
History
Regulation of businesses existed in the ancient
early Egyptian, Indian, Greek, and Roman civilizations. Standardized
weights and measures existed to an extent in the ancient world, and gold
may have operated to some degree as an international currency. In
China, a national currency system existed and paper currency was
invented. Sophisticated law existed in Ancient Rome. In the European Early Middle Ages,
law and standardization declined with the Roman Empire, but regulation
existed in the form of norms, customs, and privileges; this regulation
was aided by the unified Christian identity and a sense of honor
regarding contracts.
Modern industrial regulation can be traced to the Railway Regulation Act 1844
in the United Kingdom, and succeeding Acts. Beginning in the late 19th
and 20th centuries, much of regulation in the United States was
administered and enforced by regulatory agencies which produced their own administrative law
and procedures under the authority of statutes. Legislators created
these agencies to allow experts in the industry to focus their attention
on the issue. At the federal level, one of the earliest institutions
was the Interstate Commerce Commission which had its roots in earlier state-based regulatory commissions and agencies. Later agencies include the Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board,
and various other institutions. These institutions vary from industry
to industry and at the federal and state level. Individual agencies do
not necessarily have clear life-cycles or patterns of behavior, and they are influenced heavily by their leadership and staff as well as the organic law
creating the agency. In the 1930s, lawmakers believed that unregulated
business often led to injustice and inefficiency; in the 1960s and
1970s, concern shifted to regulatory capture, which led to extremely detailed laws creating the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The regulation of science refers to use of law, or other ruling, by academic or governmental bodies to allow or restrict science from performing certain practices, or researching certain scientific areas.
Science could be regulated by legislation if areas are seen as harmful, immoral, or dangerous. For these reasons science regulation may be closely related to religion, culture and society.
Unjust events such as the St. Louis tragedy or the Tuskegee syphilis experiment
have prompted regulations in biomedical research. Over the years,
regulations have been extended to encompass animal welfare and research
misconduct. The federal government also monitors the production and sale
of the results of biomedical research such as drugs and
biopharmaceuticals. The FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services oversee the implementation of these regulations.
The Dickey–Wicker Amendment
prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using
appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research
purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed.
Human subject research
The
issue of experimentation on human subjects gained prominence after
World War II and the revelation of atrocities committed in the name of
science. In the United States, the 1962 Kefauver-Harris amendments to the FDA included for the first time a requirement for informed consent of participants.
In 1966, a policy statement by the U.S Surgeon General required that
all human subject research go through independent prior review. The National Research Act of 1974 institutionalized this review process by requiring that research centers establish Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).
Universities, hospitals, and other research institutions set up
these IRBs to review all the research done at the institution. These
boards, generally composed of both scientific peers from the institution
and lay persons, are tasked with assessing the risks and benefits
associated with the use of human subjects, in addition to the adequacy
of the protection and consent of the participants. The IRBs can approve
research proposals, make modifications, or disapprove them entirely.
Research projects cannot receive federal funding without approval from
an IRB. Noncompliance can also induce sanctions from the institution,
such as revoked access to facilities and subjects, suspension, and
dismissal.
The National Research Act
of 1974 also set up the National Commission for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which produced the
Belmont Report (Report on Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the
Protection of Human Subjects of Research) in 1979. This report
established a moral framework for the regulation of research involving
human subjects.
Animal welfare
The Animal Welfare Act of 1966
set standards of treatment of animals in research experiments. It
requires all research facilities to register with the USDA and allows
officials to conduct unannounced facility inspections. The Health Research Extension Act of 1985 requires that all research facilities using animals establish Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) to evaluate twice a year the institutions' activities involving animals. The IACUCs report to the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare annually.
Research misconduct
The
Health Research Extension Act of 1985 led to the establishment of the
Office of Research Integrity (ORI) within the Department of Health and
Human Services. ORI is responsible for reviewing research misconduct
allegations and developing policies to improve the responsible conduct
of research.
Commercialization
Two divisions of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are in charge of monitoring the production and sale of drugs. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is responsible for reviewing new drug applications and requires clinical trials as proof of effectiveness. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) is responsible for implementing federal regulations of biopharmaceuticals
such as vaccines, blood components, gene therapies, etc. They approve
new drugs on the basis of safety and effectiveness, and issue licenses,
which allow companies to market their products.[9]
Nuclear energy research
Nuclear
energy is historically linked to issues of national security. From 1942
to 1946, nuclear research was controlled by the military, which
conducted research in secrecy. In 1946, the Atomic Energy Act
handed over control to civilians, although the government retained a
tight monopoly over nuclear energy. The 1954 amendment to this act
enabled private industry to pursue non-military applications of nuclear
research.
The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 established the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), in charge of licensing and safety. The Chernobyl and Fukushima
accidents raised concerns and public apprehension over the safety of
nuclear power. As a result, the NRC strengthened safety regulations for
nuclear power plants.
Teaching
Science
education is a controversial subject in the United States. Several
states banned the teaching of evolution in the 20th century, most
notably the state of Tennessee with the Butler Act of 1925. It was followed by the Scopes Trial,
in which the state of Tennessee accused Scopes, a high school teacher,
of teaching evolution. Although he was found guilty and fined, the trial
showed declining public support for Fundamentalists. The Scopes Trial
had an important impact in the larger creation versus evolution debate.
In the following decades, the term "evolution" was omitted in many
biology textbooks, even when the text discusses it. These bans on teaching evolution were overturned by a Supreme Court ruling in Epperson v. Arkansas in 1968. Since 2001, there has been a resurgence of anti-evolution bills, one of which, the Louisiana Science Education Act,
was passed. This Act allows public schools to use supplementary
material that is critical of the scientific theories such as evolution
and global warming in science classrooms.
The U.S. government and state legislatures have also enacted regulations promoting science education. The National Defense Education Act
of 1958 was passed soon after the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1
and linked education with issues of national security. This law provided
funding for scholarships and science programs. In 2013, 26 state governments worked together to produce the Next Generation Science Standards, which sets expectations for K–12 science education.
International regulations
The Nuremberg Code
was written as part of the trials of Nazi doctors after World War II.
It introduced ten ethical principles regarding human experimentation,
the first of which requires informed consent from human subjects. It
also states that experimentation on humans must be necessary to society,
be preceded by studies on animals, and protect subjects from injury,
disability and death. The Nuremberg Code was very influential in shaping regulations of scientific research across the world. For example, the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 was developed by the World Medical Association and establishes ethical principles for the medical community.
