Re-framing student academic freedom: a capability perspective

The scholarly debate about academic freedom focuses almost exclusively on the rights of academic faculty. Student academic freedom is rarely discussed and is normally confined to debates connected with the politicisation of the curriculum. Concerns about (student) freedom of speech reflect the dominant role of negative rights in the analysis of academic freedom representing ‘threats’ to academic freedom in terms of rights which may be taken away from a person rather than conferred on them. This paper draws on the distinction between negative and positive rights and the work of Sen (1999) to re-frame student academic freedom as capability. It is argued that capability deprivation has a negative impact on the extent to which students can exercise academic freedom in practice and that student capability can be enhanced through a liberal education that empowers rather than domesticates students.     

Academic Freedom: Constitutional Myths and Practical Realities

Academic Freedom is a sacrosanct value on American university campuses. Virtually all research institutions, public and private, have explicitly adopted some form of the American Association of University Professors’ 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure or the organization’s the 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom & Tenure. Because of the near universal acceptance of the principle of academic freedom, there is a common belief that the United States Constitution recognizes academic freedom and, more importantly, confers “special rights” on the persons and institutions of academia. Yet, despite its almost universal acceptance by faculty and administrators and despite its constant use as a constitutional theory whenever faculty and/or administrators dislike a government program, academic freedom is a constitutional myth. The rights of individual academics or of academic institutions are no greater than the rights of individual non-academics or of non-academic agencies or institutions. Put another way, from a constitutional standpoint, there is nothing special about the academic setting. Academic Freedom is no greater, and no lesser, than the constitutional rights of non-academics or ordinary state agencies. Nevertheless, academic freedom must be respected as a practical reality. There are important public policy reasons why university professors should have wide latitude in their research, writing, and teaching efforts. At the same time, institutions should be given a large amount of discretion in determining the scope of their missions. In other words, while academic freedom is not a federal constitutional value, it should be an important public policy consideration and, perhaps, even a state constitutional value. The purpose of this Article is twofold. First, it seeks to demonstrate that academic freedom is a constitutional myth. Institutional academic freedom, the idea that institutions of higher education have a federal constitutional right to be free from outside control, is simply incompatible with constitutional realities. Moreover, professors do not have an individual constitutional right to academic freedom. In short, the rights of professors and the institutions that employ them are no greater than the rights of non-academic employees and non-academic organizations. Second, it attempts to explain why respect for academic freedom is a practical reality.     

Academic Standards,Internationalisation, and the Discursive Construction of "The International Student"

The release in early 2001 of a study of Australian social science academics perceptions of the impact of commercialisation on academic freedom (Kayrooz, Kinnear & Preston, 2001) led to sustained public debate over the issue of academic standards and the internationalisation of higher education in Australia. This debate gave expression to growing disaffection amongst Australian academics with the pressures for increased com mercialisation and entrepreneurialism in their work. In this paper I use the tools provided through the work of Michel Foucault to critically examine the terms of the debate as it was conducted in the public arena. The purpose of this analysis is to explore the ways in which international students were represented in the discourses of academic standards, and the conflation of the alleged decline in academic standards with the internationalisation of higher education, and in particular, with the presence of international students on Australian campuses.     

教育与儿童的自由

人类的自由可以分为三种形式：个人自由、社会自由和理智的自由。具体分析了儿童在学校生活中应享有和发展的三种自由，认为目前学校对儿童的个人自由限制过多，所以儿童的个人自由与权利应得到充分的强调，这是他们个性获得充分发展与幸福生活的必要条件。学校的作用在于引导学生获得自由，将学生培养成自由人。     

Teacher-student development in mathematics classrooms: Interrelated zones of free movement and promoted actions

This paper applies and extends Valsiner’s ‘zone theory’ (zones of free movement and promoted actions) through an examination of an intervention to establish inquiry communities in primary mathematics classrooms. Valsiner’s zone theory, in a classroom setting, views students’ freedom of choice of action and thought as mediated by the teacher. The extension of this theory adds that teachers’ freedom of choice of action and thought is mediated by ‘significant others’ and also by the actions of students with new freedoms. The paper presents necessary theoretical constructs and provides extracts from lessons and from teacher-teacher collaboration to illustrate the theoretical extension.     

Teacher and student responses to interdisciplinary aspects of sustainability education: what do we really know?

That the value of interdisciplinarity in sustainability education is largely taken for granted reflects widely held views about the inherent complexity and uncertainty of sustainability issues and the need for holistic responses to them. Although there is an extensive literature on interdisciplinarity, there has been relatively little investigation of the ways in which teachers and learners deal with and respond to this central aspect of sustainability education. This paper presents data from two case studies of masters course in sustainability education, one in an English university and one in a Chinese university, and examines some of the contextual factors that support or limit their attempts to go beyond the bounded ways of thinking associated with more traditional academic disciplines. While some learners respond enthusiastically to interdisciplinarity, others experience forms of ‘cognitive dissonance’. Interdisciplinarity requires individual teachers to operate as members of teams and to find ways of promoting dialogue between different perspectives, discourses and methods of approaching problems. The key to interdisciplinarity is an open attitude, a willingness to learn and an ability to engage with different ways of thinking about issues we face in common.     

教育自由及其原则：政治哲学的视角

自由是主体免于干涉或强制的一种积极主动的自我实现,是消极自由和积极自由的统一。儿童的教育自由表现为教育选择的自由、社会自由、学习自由、思想表达自由和个性自由。这些自由体现了自由主义的个人中心、权利至上、价值多元等理念。教育自由要遵循平等、限度、宽容和引导的原则。     

A PLACE FROM WHERE TO SPEAK: THE UNIVERSITY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

ABSTRACT:  the university is promoted as 'a place from where to speak'. Academic freedom is examined as a crucial value in an increasingly uncertain age which resonates with Barnett's concern to encourage students to overcome their 'fear of freedom'. My concern is that the putative university space of freedom and autonomy may well become constricted by those who would limit not just our freedom to speak but also our freedoms to be and to do. Without academic freedom students and teachers, who might be able to fly, will not be permitted to fly. I review issues of academic freedom and free speech raised especially by Berlin, Voltaire, von Humboldt, Mill, Milton and Rorty. I discuss problems raised when free speech is heard by others as harmful and offensive to their beliefs and values. I offer a set of suggestions to ensure that the university may envision itself as a space of freedom, pluralism and tolerance. Finally, I reflect that the university, of all democratic institutions, should be the one which best serves its society as 'a place from where to speak' .     

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.     

'Not Without Dust and Heat': The Moral Bases of the 'New' Academic Professionalism

This paper challenges the view that academic professionalism resides in the professional 'autonomy' of the academic, the 'self-regulation' of academics as an occupational group, and the differential 'status' of academic workers. This still influential (though residual) notion of academic professionalism, it is argued, leads to institutional stasis. What is required is greater reflexivity by academics in respect of their underlying professional values. In particular the piece challenges the academic community (of which the author is a member) to re-think academic freedom – the bedrock of professional identity within that community – in terms of increased inclusivity: 'freedom for all' rather than 'freedom for academics' The paper touches on issues relating to practice and organisational structure, but focuses primarily on the need for academics to shift the moral bases of their claim to professionalism. In so doing, it also challenges the post-Dearing consensus that the debate on academic professionalism can be adequately conducted in terms of 'standards' and 'outcomes'. A prime purpose of the paper is to promote debate and discussion by setting a different kind of agenda (a moral agenda) and by couching that agenda within a different kind of discourse (one that invites and admits moral speculation).     

ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND THE DIMINISHED SUBJECT

ABSTRACT:  Discussions about freedom of speech and academic freedom today are about the limits to those freedoms. However, these discussions take place mostly in the higher education trade press and do not receive any serious attention from academics and educationalists. In this paper several key arguments for limiting academic freedom are identified, examined and placed in an historical context. That contextualisation shows that with the disappearance of social and political struggles to extend freedom in society there has come a narrowing of academic life and a new and impoverished concept of 'academic freedom' for a diminished idea of the human subject, of humanity and of human potential .     

公民社会中个人自由的重塑——卢梭自由思想内在逻辑一致性分析

卢梭政治思想中的自由悖论问题是200年来西方政治思想家争论的焦点。卢梭的政治思想与以洛克为代表的自然法学派具有很大的区别。卢梭认为人类在自然状态中并非没有天赋的自然权利,完全是根据自己的欲望和本性享受着不受任何约束的个人自由,而不是在一定范围内不受侵犯也不得侵犯他人的权利。但这种自由只有在人类签订社会契约,摆脱自然状态,进入公民社会时才可能出现。卢梭认为,个人的自由就是对代表公意的法律的遵守,而这种自由在自然状态中是不存在的。卢梭这种对自由论证的逻辑并不存在矛盾,其关键点就在于人的自由只有在政治共同体中才能够实现。     

试论思想政治理论课教学自由的定位与实现

教学自由是大学精神与价值的基本要求与体现。但由于思想政治理论课的特殊性质,使得很多从事思想政治理论课教学的教师不敢对教学自由做深层次的探索,严重影响了该学科的学术研究与教学效果。思想政治理论课不是单纯的知识课,而是意识形态的灌输,且具有很强的学术性,因此思想政治理论课与大学其他学科教学一样,同样需要教学自由。思想政治理论课具有探索的自由、理解的自由、选择的自由、检验的自由。要真正实现这些自由,不仅需要学校相关制度的支持与保障,还需要教师具有教学自由的思想观念、较高的理论素养、独立自强的心理品质。     

Academic freedom

Having survived threats from a wide variety of ideologies (isms), religious and secular, going back to the first commandment, academic freedom is again under the gun of ideological fashion (orthodoxy, political correctness), plutocracy and feminism — at least the more extremist wings. The paper offers an analysis and justification of the traditional concept of academic freedom — the discretionary (but limited) rights of academics over a wide range of activities under the headings of teaching and research. The justification collects three lines of argument: (a) rights of the competent, (b) institutional benefits of separation of powers, and (c) the implications of fallibilism. Focus then shifts to an analysis and critique of a recent feminist revision of academic freedom. Implementing a common stratagem, freedom gets redefined as duties of affirmative action toward women (and minorities). A critique of this revision is sketched.     

Interpretation of children’s views by educational psychologists: dilemmas and solutions

This paper considers how listening to children’s views and taking account of them is understood in different ways by educational psychologists. Rationales for listening to children include (1) supporting their rights to express views, (2) therapeutic benefits of participation, and either (3) valuing their views as insightful contributions to problem-solving or (4) considering them as contributory factors to the problem. This creates dilemmas about interpretation on different occasions, and a range of theoretical stances are discussed in terms of how far they can support robust decision-making about this interpretation, and a practical way forward is suggested using principles based on critical realism.     

Academic freedom in Australia

Conclusion I have argued that there are two ways of looking at academic freedom: as personal or individual and as institutional. The idea of personal freedom was seen to be difficult to justify as a special prerogative of academics, and in the Australian situation where it is appealed to, it is as much used to justify ill-treatment of the academic by his or her colleagues as it is to defend a precious right. The situation in respect of institutional academic freedom was seen to be different. It was claimed that the unique structure of the Australian university system together with the conflict with a centralized government over governance and power resulted in serious challenges to this less definable sense of freedom. Institutional academic freedom is seen to be threatened in a way that will possibly both change universities permanently and significantly undermine traditional educational ideals, especially those that have to do with intrinsic values.     

The Role of Agent and Social Context in Judgments of Freedom of Speech and Religion

This study examined children's, adolescents', and college students' judgments of the rights of child and adult agents to freedom of speech and religion in 3 social contexts: the general level of society, the school, and the family. Two hundred forty participants, evenly divided into 5 grade levels (mean ages 6,6, 8,5,10,6,12,4, and 22,7) made judgments of the legitimacy of authority prohibition, rule evaluation, generalizability, and rule violation for all freedom/social context/agent combinations. Concepts of freedom of speech and religion were found to emerge in the early elementary school years, and endorsements of freedoms were increasingly affected by social context and agent with age. College students were less likely than any other age group to affirm children's freedom of religion in the family context. Considerations of the mental competence and maturity of agents and the potential for harm to ensue from acting on freedoms played an important part in the decisions of older, but not younger, participants.     

From schools to Higher Education – neoliberal agendas and implications for autonomy

Neoliberal agendas have acted to limit the agency of groups and of individuals through both the imposition of boundaries and through setting up rigorous systems of accountability which together act to codify behaviours. Such systems do not so much remove freedom as influence conceptions about the alternatives available. In this article we outline the English educational policy context and the pressures placed upon first primary schools and then Higher Education establishments, considering the extent to which accountability and an emphasis on the needs of the individual impact on leadership behaviours in schools and upon academic freedoms in Higher Education. Boundaries to individual or group agency are explored drawing together lessons about the limits on professionals in these two situations.     

幽暗意识、民主传统与高等教育体制中的分权制衡

西方基督教传统以其深刻的幽暗意识洞察人性之罪恶,这种关于人性恶的视角成为自由主义学者进行政治制度设计的理论根据,他们带着幽暗意识设计出权力制衡的民主制度。政治上的权力制衡原则延伸到高等教育领域,使得美国的高等教育体制通过分权而有效地保障了学术自由。     

Liberalism,Communitarianism and Discussion Method as a Means of Reconciling Controversial Moral Issues

While liberals see personal autonomy as paramount in civil society and as intrinsic to human dignity and human rights, others, such as communitarians, see group rights as intrinsic to human development and human welfare. Thus, while generally liberals give no or very little place in their thinking to right-bearing groups or collective entities, others see communities as conditions for self-fulfilment and individual freedom. This paper explores these two positions and argues that a cultural, pluralist, democratic society will be characterised by a diversity of controversial moral positions at a range of levels. The paper offers discussion as a method of reconciling controversial moral positions, in general and in classrooms, in particular.