The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition. Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights.
Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society. [AAUP 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure]
The news has been full over the last year with stories surrounding the issue of academic freedom. In response, many faculty and administrators have begun to debate the importance of academic freedom in an industry environment so polarized that persons cannot even agree on what academic freedom is, let alone what its parameters should be. Numerous faculty and administrators have lost their jobs over expressing their views on the current war in Gaza. There are many dimensions of those episodes that go far beyond the issue of academic freedom. Here I want to concentrate only on how academic freedom operates within a particular subdomain of higher education, namely, small teaching IHEs as opposed to research institutions.
Academic Freedom As Student-Centric
The original purpose of academic freedom was to protect faculty at research institutions from retaliation based upon their research findings. In teaching institutions, however, the primary purpose of faculty activity is the teaching of undergraduates. Although the primary focus of these faculty is teaching rather than research, academic freedom remains an important component of their professional life. In a teaching context, the chief benefactors of academic freedom should be students and not faculty. Academic freedom is vital to the learning progress and character formation of students. That means that academic freedom is not an end in itself or even a perk offered to faculty.
Instead, academic freedom is a tool that faculty must have to teach effectively. The political science professor must have the freedom to talk about the Gaza war and express opinions about it, even if such discussions make some students uncomfortable. The same goes for the biology professor teaching about evolution, the sociology professor teaching about LGBTQ issues, the medical sciences professor teaching about abortion, or the religion professor teaching about the virtues and vices of various religions.
Academic Freedom As A Tool
In other words, academic freedom is a tool required by professors to teach effectively. The simple analogy of a carpenter will suffice. Just as carpenters need hammers and saws to build a house, so faculty need tools like libraries and computers to teach. Academic freedom is one of the essential tools in the professor’s tool box for effective teaching, irrespective of whether that teaching involves independent research. Particularly in a teaching institution, the purpose of academic freedom is to facilitate student learning.
But like all other tools, the tool of academic freedom can be abused. A carpenter cannot build a house effectively by using a hammer to cut boards or a saw to drive nails. Likewise, academics must use their freedom wisely to facilitate student learning and growth. And using academic freedom wisely requires experience and skill. We abuse our academic freedom when we employ it in activities not relevant to the subject matter of the course, or when we do so in a way that detracts from the course’s learning objectives.
Employing Academic Freedom Effectively
So how does one employ academic freedom effectively in the teaching of students? First, instructors must keep the goal of facilitating student learning top of mind. The first thing the faculty member should think should not be, “I have the right to tell students what I think,” or “I have tenure now, so I can tell this joke.” Instead, our first thought should be, “What should I say or do here that will best help students achieve the learning goals of this class?” In many cases, the best action in answering that question will be to refrain from telling students what we think. Sometimes, telling our students what we think will cause such a visceral reaction among the students that it will hinder learning rather than help.
Second, one must employ academic freedom in a way that supports the mission of the institution. Clearly, there will be cases where a professor’s exercise of such freedom may raise questions about the soundness of a school’s mission or at least questions about whether the school is pursuing that mission effectively. These are never easy situations to deal with, either for the teacher or the administrator navigating them. But in all cases, the final judgment should rest upon whether the professor’s exercise of academic freedom had the best interests of student learning in mind. The most spectacular way of presenting a subject isn’t necessarily the most effective.
This distinction does not necessarily mean that faculty must never teach anything that administrators (or alumni or donors) find objectionable. But it does mean that administrators and faculty must be in alignment regarding what sorts of student learning activities will actually result in learning. That means that administrators must constantly put themselves in the position of faculty and ask themselves, “What do our students need to know and experience in order to grow in this situation?” Likewise, when covering controversial material, faculty should remain reflective and self-aware, asking themselves, “Am I reflecting an existing controversy that students must encounter to learn in this situation? Or am I only creating controversy as a gadfly because my students and I find it stimulating?”
Third, faculty should employ their academic freedom in a manner that demonstrates respect for the subject matter as well as for all persons involved in the subject. I might believe that a certain political candidate is a narcissist and pathological liar. But blurting that out in class is unlikely to convince any student. And it doesn’t contribute to the learning goals of the class.
Such rhetoric will appeal to a certain subgroup of students who love it when professors play the verbal arsonist and rail against the system. But the majority of students aren’t interested in cheering us on as disciples. They simply want to learn, and our grandstanding from the lectern gets in the way. Most students expect more of us than our playing to the crowd by “sticking it to the man,” “speaking truth to power,” or some other clichéd justification. Faculty at teaching colleges and universities should find ways to teach controversial topics that result in true student learning without engaging in self-aggrandizement or setting prairie fires that burn in all directions.
Academic Freedom and Tenure
The development of the concept of academic freedom in the United States reflected two intersecting influences. First, the principle of religious freedom that developed in the American colonies in the eighteenth century fostered a larger commitment to intellectual freedom in American colleges and universities. Second, American academics sometimes looked to the German intellectual tradition for inspiration in the development of university curricula. The writings of Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) stressed the need to limit governmental influence in the research operations of the university, thereby setting the stage for the American concept of academic freedom.
When the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) developed its 1915 Declaration of Principles, it enshrined the concept of academic freedom in American higher education and largely defined the principle for generations. Further, it linked academic freedom to the concept of tenure, claiming that tenure is the best and most effective guardrail against public or administrative interference in matters of academic freedom. The AAUP solidified the connection between academic freedom and tenure in its 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.
It is time to divorce the concepts of academic freedom and tenure. The kind of job security that tenure provides is relatively unknown in any other industry, including many industries where the compensation is low. I am not arguing against the need for tenure in higher education. Nor am I arguing that tenure helps to protect academic freedom for professors in environments where they otherwise would be routinely dismissed for advocating views that are unpopular. It goes without saying that we certainly live in that kind of environment today.
So where is the problem? My main justification for divorcing academic freedom and tenure is that linking the two concepts implies that faculty with tenure have greater academic freedom than faculty without tenure. If academic freedom is a tool that is necessary to teach and to do research at the collegiate level, then all faculty require this tool, and in roughly equal measure. We don’t restrict library privileges or computer use for non-tenured faculty. We recognize those as vital resources that all faculty require, regardless of their professional status. Why would we restrict academic freedom to tenured faculty, when non-tenured faculty need it to teach just as much as their tenured colleagues?
The AAUP anticipated this question in its 1940 Statement when it asserted that “during the probationary period [prior to tenure] a teacher should have the academic freedom that all other members of the faculty have.” But if academic freedom requires tenure to guarantee such freedom, then how can that freedom still exist without tenure? Conversely, if this freedom can exist without tenure, then what remains of the claim that true academic freedom requires tenure? If academic freedom is desirable, possible, and necessary for non-tenured faculty, then it must be achievable without tenure.
Instead, it is better to disconnect the concepts of academic freedom and tenure and to justify each on its own merits. Earlier in this post, I attempted to provide such a justification for academic freedom. In a future post, I hope to explore whether and how tenure can have a future in higher education without the argument that it is necessary to protect academic freedom.