What is Academic Freedom?

Created by:

​

Isaac Kamola, Director

AAUP’s Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom

​

Tim Cain, Professor of Higher Education

Louise McBee Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia

​

​

Outline

1. Historical Context
• Founding of the AAUP; 1915 Declaration of Principles; Interwar challenges; 1940 Statement of Principles

​

2. The principles of academic freedom as laid out in the 1940 Statement

​

3. Academic freedom and shared governance

Historical Context, pre-1915

• American colleges were originally fairly small and committed to training the clergy; knowledge was understood as received and passed down, rather than discovered.

​

• Because of the colonial context, no national system of higher education emerged. Instead, we have a patchwork of private and public/state institutions.

​

• During the late 19th Century many American institutions began drawing from the German model of higher education.

​

• Morrill Land Grant Act (1862)

​

Vulnerability of the Faculty

During the early 20th century faculty served as at-will employees who could be dismissed it they ran afoul of university presidents or boards. Some high profile examples include:

• Alexander Winchell: dismissed for writing about a version of evolution that conflicted with beliefs of the Methodist Church.
• Richard Ely: investigated for advocating unionization and strike actions.
• Edward Bemis: dismissed for in speech in which he argued that Ely was fired for supporting Pullman worker.
• Edward Ross: fired for criticizing the railroads

Founding of the American Association of University Professors

• The AAUP was founded in January 1915 as a professional association focused on academic freedom and shared governance

​

• At its second meeting, in December 1915, the AAUP received the annual report of its Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which became the “1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure”

John Dewey, First AAUP President

This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

The “1915 Declaration” Explains the Value of Academic Freedom

• The “1915 Declaration” established an understanding of academic freedom drawn from the German idea of Lehrfreiheit (“freedom to teach”) and the American idea of free speech.

​

• Established academic freedom as including:
• Freedom of inquiry and research
• Freedom of teaching within institution
• Freedom of extramural utterance and action

Tenure as the protection of academic freedom

The “1915 Declaration” concluded with a proposal that colleges and universities protect academic freedom by adopting policies that include:

​

• Faculty committees being primarily responsible for “reappointments and refusals of reappointment,”

​

• A system of tenure (which did not yet exist in US higher education),

​

• Clearly defined grounds for dismissal, and

​

• A formal hearing process to adjudicate cases of dismissal.

Interwar Period

• During World War I, the AAUP backed away from robust protections.

​

• In the 1920s there were fewer high-profile firings, but numerous faculty were still dismissed at smaller and less prestigious institutions; many cases involved intramural issues involving institutional governance.

​

• During the 1930s, there were several cases related to reactionary anti-communism but also issues such as promoting interracial understanding, offending moral sensibilities around sexuality, and (as always) criticizing administrators.

​

• AAUP investigated a number of institutions and, in response to several egregious cases, started its policy of censuring institutions that violated academic freedom.

Section 2: Academic Freedom in the 1940 Statement

In 1940 the AAUP and Association of American Colleges (now American Association of Colleges and Universities; AAC&U) ratified a document that recognized academic freedom in three domains:

​

​

1) Freedom in Research

“Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.”

​

​

1940 Statement

​

2) Freedom in Teaching

“Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.”

​

​

1940 Statement

3) Extramural speech

“College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”

​

[See also: “Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances” (1964)]

​

1940 Statement

4) Intramural Speech

​

Though not explicitly stated within the 1940 Statement, through its investigations over the previous 25 years, the AAUP articulated a fourth implicit element of academic freedom: intramural speech. The freedom to discuss and criticize one’s institution.

​

Without the freedom of intramural speech, shared governance cannot exist.

Scenario 1:

An assistant professor has been active publishing peer-review articles demonstrating that a particular petrochemical is far more carcinogenic than previously known. Their university, however, receives considerable funding from the corporation making that chemical. Based on your understanding of academic freedom, is it a violation of academic freedom:

​

For the Dean to demand that the faculty member stop publishing on this topic

​

For the Dean to insinuate that the Board of Trustees has taken a particular interest in their research, and will be voting on the faculty member’s tenure file later that year

​

For the company to extend funding to particular faculty members who have previously expressed doubt that the petrochemical is carcinogenic

Scenario 2:

Students on campus are talking about a terrorist bombing that just happened, with considerable geopolitical consequences. Many students feel deeply concerned, including several from the country in question. A graduate student instructor in a Calculus 101 class prioritizes letting students know they are available to support students. Based on your understanding of academic freedom:

​

Is the instructor free to talk about this event in their class, even though it has nothing to do with Calculus?

​

Are they free to offer their personal stance pertaining to this event?

​

Are they free to hand out a flyer for a rally or protest?

​

Scenario 3:

A part-time lecturer at a public university is a scholar of racial segregation in the US. They write a social media post criticizing the governor’s refusal to remove a Confederate monument: “I know racists when I see one, and Governor D. is a racist!” the post reads. The governor threatens to withhold funding if the university does not fire the faculty member.

​

Is this social media post protected by academic freedom?

​

If the university is committed to protecting academic freedom, how should it respond?

​

Would this response be different if the class instructor was a tenured professor?

​

Would the response be different if the instructor was an Engineering professor, with no relevant expertise?

1940 Statement

A key intervention in the 1940 Statement was the creation of a standard tenure system including:

​

• written terms of appointment,

​

• a maximum of a 7-year probationary period before tenure, during which academic freedom would be protected, and

​

• termination after tenure only for cause or “demonstrably bona fide” financial exigency.

1940 Statement

The “1940 Statement” also laid out the process of terminating faculty for cause:

​

“Termination for cause of a continuous appointment, or the dismissal for cause of a teacher previous to the expiration of a term appointment, should, if possible, be considered by both a faculty committee and the governing board of the institution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges and should have the opportunity to be heard in his or her own defense by all bodies that pass judgment upon the case. The teacher should be permitted to be accompanied by an advisor of his or her own choosing who may act as counsel. There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned. In the hearing of charges of incompetence the testimony should include that of teachers and other scholars, either from the teacher’s own or from other institutions. Teachers on continuous appointment who are dismissed for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive their salaries for at least a year from the date of notification of dismissal whether or not they  are continued in their duties at the institution.”

1940 Statement Affirmed by:

Negotiated by the AAUP and the AAC&U, the “1940 Statement” has since been affirmed by more than 270 scholarly and professional associations, from:

​

Academic Senate for California Community Colleges 1996�Academic Senate of the California State University 2004�Academy of Legal Studies in Business 1971�Academy of Management 1965�Acoustical Society of America 2015�African Studies Association 1975�Agricultural and Applied Economic Association 1962�Agricultural History Society 2004�American Academy for Jewish Research 2014�American Academy of Religion 1967�American Anthropological Association 1970�American Association for Applied Linguistics 1986…

In one of the earliest endorsements, the Statement was adopted for librarians in 1946.

1940 Statement Affirmed by:

to:

​

…Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology 1953�Southern States Communication Association 1966�Southwest Academy of Management 2024�Southwestern Philosophical Society 1964�Southwestern Social Science Association 1964 �Texas Association of College Teachers 1976�Texas Association of Colleges for Teacher Education 1977�Texas Community College Teachers Association 1970�Texas Library Association 1977�University Film and Video Association 1968�Urban History Association, 2014�Western History Association 1966�Western Society for French History 2024�Western States Communication Association 1976�Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies South 2009�World Communication Association 1999�World History Association 2014

Section 3: Academic Freedom and Shared

Governance

​

​

1966 Statement jointly formulated by the AAUP, the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB).

What does shared governance look like in practice?

When shared governance is working well, faculty have considerable oversight into the governance of those aspects of the institution that guide the core teaching and research mission of the institution. This includes faculty senates or elected faculty committees overseeing:

• the curriculum
• the appointment, reappointment, and promotion of faculty
• and, the assessment of whether there is cause of termination or non-renewal.

​

Faculty should also be involved in decision-making process on all aspects of the institution as they influence teaching and research (priorities of a capital campaign, admissions strategies, athletics, library and technology acquisitions, etc.)

Discussion

What are some current obstacles to academic freedom and shared governance facing academic institutions today?

​

​

​

Does your institution have policies that protect academic freedom and shared governance?

​

​

​

​

Is there much variation across rank and job classification?