从辉煌到衰微——中世纪大学教师职业安全的历史考察

大学教师一贯具有知识分子品性中的个人独立性和批判性,因而常常招致被批评者的不满和嫉恨。在中世纪,由于城市自治的传统和教会、王权、大学之间的复杂关系,大学教师成功争取到了种种保障职业安全的特权。这些特权对于大学自治传统、学术自由理念的建立和维护发挥了重要作用。15世纪以后,随着大学国际化色彩的日益褪却、世俗国家力量的日渐强大,大学教师的种种特权逐渐走向衰微,职业安全面临新的挑战和威胁。     

中世纪大学特许状(章程)的特点及变革

中世纪欧洲大学的特许状(章程),对大学的发展起了重要的作用。它们的主要特点包括:特许状或大学章程的制定主体极为权威,赋予大学身份合法化,用多种特权保障大学自治和学术自由,明确大学内部管理体制。但之后这些特许状(章程)出现了一些变化:许多特权被剥夺,办学理念日益完善,内部管理体制革新。     

13—15世纪巴黎大学特权的演变过程

大学特权是中世纪大学的特点之一。本文以巴黎大学为例,剖析了大学特权获得、发展和转变的历史进程及原因。13世纪,巴黎大学的特权主要来自于教皇的特权敕令。教皇在授予巴黎大学师生居住权、罢课权、独立司法权和教师许可授予权等特权后,又设立教皇特权保护委员会,以保护大学师生的特权不受侵犯。14世纪,教皇减少了对大学特权的关注,但是法国国王不仅肯定了大学师生已有的特权,还增加了税收、赋役和兵役等特权,也设立了国王特权保护委员会,以督促市长保护大学师生的特权。15世纪后,巴黎大学师生的特权逐渐受到限制或被剥夺。到15世纪末,巴黎大学的特权已经变成了对少数人的“特别优待”。     

中世纪西欧的城市特许状

中世纪西欧的城市特许状是国王或大封建主颁发给城市和市民的一种法律意义上的权利认可证书。它的出现是中世纪西欧封建经济发展和社会历史发展的必然结果,其内容主要是确认城市的自治权和其他特权,明确市民享有的各项自由、各种经济和法律上的特权等等。它在本质上是一种“特别授权”的法律,是近代资本主义宪政制度的起源和基础。它不仅促进了中世纪西欧城市和商品经济的发展,而且也促进了整个西欧封建经济的发展,从而推动了西欧封建社会向近代社会的转型。     

中世纪博洛尼亚大学学生自治模式探析

现代大学起源于欧洲中世纪,博洛尼亚大学是最早的大学之一,被称作"大学之母"。探讨博洛尼亚大学的运行模式和管理机构———同乡会管理模式,研究从同乡会对教师的管理、对学校的日常管理及其在斗争中取得的特权,能很好地揭示出早期大学自治的源泉。     

西欧封建城市自主权的历史考察

西欧中世纪城市通常被称为自由城市。其中不少城市都拥有自主权,往往是一个独立的政治单位,与东方城市相比,这种现象成为西欧城市的一个显著的特点。这个特点有哪些表现,它是怎么形成的,及其对西欧历史的发展有什么影响,本文想对此作一些考察。一西欧的封建城市所以被称为自由市,指的是这些城市往往从管辖它的领主或国王那里得到一份特权证书,从而从法律上保障它某些自主的权利。这些特权一般包括市民的人身自由、自由经商权以及土地权和独立的司法权等。在许多城市获得的特权证书中,一般都有给予市民以人身自由的条款,并附带说明…     

中世纪大学称谓的变迁

中世纪大学的称谓经过了从studium(学校)到studium generale(大学校),最终到universitas(大学)的变迁①。这种称谓的变迁,是中世纪大学机构自然演进的历程,同时也是大学师生积极争取学术自由探究权力的斗争历程。正是大学师生的努力,使得大学能够在中世纪的教会与世俗两大势力之间获得相对独立的地位,真正体现出大学作为一种知识机制本身所蕴含的社会意义。用来泛指大学师生整体的universitas因此成为自由探究知识的大学的最后的代名词。     

论中世纪晚期西方大学和学者社群的社会特权

早在西方大学产生之初,大学及其学者社群就通过身份依附策略、刚性斗争策略、柔性独立策略以及合作共生策略,赢得了充分民事权、独立司法权、税役豁免权以及学术自由权。广泛的社会特权使新兴大学和学者社群实现了对知识操作和学术生活的垄断、赢得了社会的尊重和重视、切实构建了现代大学的学术自由传统,但也诱使大学和学者社群出现了贵族化倾向、滋生了学术腐败。因此必须理性审视大学和学者社群的社会特权。     

中世纪大学之“学术自由”辨析

学术自由的概念经历过历史的衍变.中世纪大学中的“学术自由”主要是指大学和大学师生作为个体以及由其组成的社团整体所享有的特许权的总和,包括结社自治、罢课、迁徙、教会司法、通行执教资格等.博洛尼亚和巴黎是中世纪大学的主要策源地,它们获得的特许状(令)是中世纪大学之“学术自由”的例证;中世纪大学教师加兰的约翰留下的信札对理解与阐释中世纪的“学术自由”也有重要的辅助意义.本文通过对官方与私人两类史料进行考查与释读,厘清中世纪大学的“学术自由”与近现代学术自由的分野,剥离教研自由与大学在中世纪起源时期的关系.     

西欧中世纪大学的特权及其对现代大学的启示

西欧中世纪大学是世界大学史上辉煌的一页,与之相关的便是当时它所享有的一系列特权。这些特权对中世纪大学的成长无疑起到了举足轻重的作用。通过对中世纪大学特权的研究,我们可以意识到大学与政府等各种社会力量之间的关系问题,对现代大学的发展和管理方式也有重要的启发意义。     

大学本质的致知路径--读张楚廷《大学是什么》有感

《大学是什么》从哲学的高度对大学做了系统而精辟的阐释。“大学是什么”并非一种简单的事实判断,而是价值认知,但又不是某一种价值认知,它是基于某种价值共识的多元统一。从大学的视域看大学,高深学问是大学存在的依据;从教育的视域看大学,大学为学术而学术;从“人”的视域看大学:大学让人获得更大自由。大学的特殊性质决定了“大学就是大学”。     

Game-like regulation of universities: Will the new regulatory framework for higher education in Sweden work?

A major reform of higher education in Sweden took place in 1993, making a radical change from central planning by parliament to deregulation, privatisation and performance-related funding. To analyse the new kind of interaction between government and universities, a model based on game theory can be used, where government and universities are seen as actors in an iterated Prisoners' Dilemma. The analysis is based on a model of “responsive regulation”, in which a number of recommendations are made on how cooperation can be achieved in a regulatory relationship. This model is then compared to the new formal regulatory framework in Sweden, which can be described in six points. Secondly I compare the model to the available evidence of what has happened in “real life” since the reform was enacted. This approach adds to the literature on implementation, in which studies usually focus on specific orders from the top, whereas this is about shifting initiative from the central to the local level. As such, it is a starting point in an analysis of how “freedom” is implemented; “will universities take advantage of their greater independence and, if so, how will they do it?”. “What are the necessary prerequisites for this to take place?”.     

Examining the fabric of academic life: An analysis of three decades of research on the perceptions of Australian academics about their roles

Over the last three decades there have been numerous surveys in Australian universities which have attempted to describe the perceptions of academic staff to various aspects of their roles. Each of these surveys appears to have been inspired by changes resulting from contemporaneous government policies and/or community expectations. Calls for “Efficiency and Effectiveness”, “Accountability”, and “Quality and Diversity”have coincided with massive expansion in the higher education system, the change from a binary system to the Unified National System, and consequent changes to student profiles, funding arrangements, and academic workloads. Academic culture, with its tradition of freedom and autonomy, has been besieged by the alien culture of managerialism with its own vocabulary of “client”, “quality assurance”, and “product”: but has this assault made any difference to how academics perceive their work and their perceptions of quality in university teaching ? This paper reports on an analysis of data (relating to academics' perceptions of their work) from surveys conducted in universities from the late 70s and throughout the 80s and 90s. The paper analyses, compares and contextualises academic perceptions across these decades, and draws some conclusions about the perseverence of academic culture under siege.     

Responding to Academic Freedom

W. Richard Bond's “Zero Tolerance: A New Enemy of Academic Freedom?,” Michael Kubara's “Academic Freedom,” and Fred Wilson's “In Defence of Speech Codes” included in the Symposium published in Interchange, Volume 27, #2, 1996, deal with the role and importance of academic freedom in Canadian universities and the pressures both within and without the academy for its attenuation. Although the Bond paper begins with the recent controversy in Ontario universities over the attempted introduction of a policy of zero tolerance of harassment and discrimination, it quickly moves to a summary of the traditional position regarding academic freedom in which that right is balanced by a corresponding responsibility. As insistent as Bond on the importance of academic freedom, Kubara and Wilson both approach the topic in a more argumentative fashion. Kubara and Wilson differ, however, in the kinds of arguments they propound. Kubara defends the traditional liberal conception of the university and attacks what he regards as the trendy feminist attack on academic freedom. Wilson recognizes that along with the rights bestowed by the acceptance of the principle of academic freedom is an obligation to engage in rational debate. The mechanism in Wilson's view for ensuring such debate is a well-crafted speech code in which professionally unacceptable speech acts are unambiguously defined. The fundamental difference between these two positions is that, whereas Kubara advocates an academic discourse that is as unfettered as is permissible within the law, Wilson proposes stricter limitations. I will discuss the Bond, Kubara, and Wilson papers in turn, commenting briefly on their positions. I will then present my own position on academic freedom and speech codes.     

Privileges of Universitas Magistrorum et Scolarium and their Justification in Charters of Foundation from the 13th to the 21st Centuries

Analysing foundation charters, this article explores the various purposes universities have been said to serve at different periods of time, how the distinction between universities and other educational establishments has been made, and how the actions of the academic community have been justified. The data consist of 225 charters of foundation from the year 1224 to 1999. Granted by rulers, the charters depict universities as being suited to serve widely differing purposes, such as furthering the material and spiritual prosperity of the nation and the local community, strengthening the right faith and training public servants. Charters granted universities privileges such as the status of studium generale and ius ubique docendi, a universal teaching licence. These privileges created a foundation for all later principles generally applicable to the academic world. The universities originating in academic guilds founded for the protection of scholars have always been answerable to societal demands. A certain degree of loyalty by academic people to those in power has, in turn, secured the universities and the academic community their vital integrity and freedom of opinion, publication and research.     

“慕课”对地方普通本科院校的影响与教师应对

"慕课"是指"大规模在线开放课程",从兴起到现在才几年的时间就在全球快速发展起来,照此发展速度,将来地方普通本科院校可能受到较大的影响。文章从为教师提供继续学习的平台和为学生提供聆听世界级高水平教授讲课的机会两个角度分析"慕课"教学模式对于地方普通本科院校的有利之处;还从地方普通本科院校的招生数量和地方普通本科院校教师岗位的稳定性两个方面分析"慕课"教学模式可能带来的不利影响;探讨地方普通本科院校的教师应如何积极借助"慕课"平台提升和重塑自己,从而应对"慕课"教学模式可能带来的影响等问题。     

再探学分制--学分制的形成、发展、问题及展望

学分制源自德国选修制,学习自由是其最根本的理念,以生为本、终身学习则是在该理念基础上衍生而来的。理念的嬗变必然会导致功能的累加,从测量计算到契约协议再到资源配置和积累转换,学分制经历了一个不断完善的过程。如今,我国高校学分制改革似乎“误入歧途”,究其根源仍在于对学分制本质认识有所偏差。国外对学分制的研究更多聚焦在学分互认和终身学习方面,这将是我国学分制未来发展的新动向。     

我国高校教师社科研究之分类评价及其管理模式探讨

分类评价是拓展高校社科研究自由度、发挥高校教师创新能力,提高高校社科管理科学化水平的必然趋势和选择。以代表作为基础的个体类型评价,以核心任务为基础的团队功能评价,以公平监督为基础的成果价值评价集中体现了"以质定型"和"以用定性"的分类评价思路;配置性评定与任期评估相结合、形成性评定与有效监督相结合、发展性评定与社会影响相结合的管理模式将积极推进高校社科管理的"人本化"与"科学化"进程。     

Patterns of Academic Inflow into the Higher Education System of the United Kingdom

This article examines the geographical mobility of highly skilled scientific personnel with reference to universities as principal recruiters of scientific skills. Its interest is the British academic labour market primarily because the United Kingdom has been a traditional academic destination for foreign scientists and students. Despite much of the talk about the internationalization of the scientific/academic community in the advanced world, the academic community of the United Kingdom is still far from being truly globalized. It is more Europeanized than internationalized. Inflows of foreign skills will enrich the science pool of the United Kingdom, but these, however, will mostly benefit the already high performing universities and departments. Lower performance universities might benefit less, as they will attract fewer foreign “stars” to their modest departments. The concept of “brain circulation” might be skewed through the biased division of this circulation between high performing and less performing institutions.