Talk:Academic freedom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Education | (Rated B-Class) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
This [referring to a previous version of the page!] is a classic example of an article that violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy: It tells only one side of the story. What's here is fine, in the sense that it captures the U.S. right wing's attack on traditional notions of academic freedom; it fails miserably in communicating more moderate views, including those of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). If contributors truly believe in academic freedom, should they not be eager to describe both sides accurately? Bryan 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Whoa! Take a deep breath...ahhhh. Okay, now. You defensively assume that if "only one side of the story" has been told that there is an intent to distort. If there is an opposing view that you are familiar with and can document, then by all means include it. As John Lennon said, "We're all doing what we can."
- Rdikeman 01:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- You are right; I apologize -- I shouldn't have inferred malevolent intent. But the wording is so negative that I'm sure I wouldn't be alone: Academic freedom, says the current page's lead paragraph, is a 'an often poorly defined concept... considered by some to be ungrounded... the legal concept of academic freedom is ill defined and inconsistent.' A subsequent section should discuss this, not the lead paragraph, right? So I'm posting a rewritten lead paragraph, with documentation.Bryan 16:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've revised the article along the lines I've indicated. I hope very much that I have done a good job portraying both sides of the Academic Bill of Rights issue. Bryan 18:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
= = = = = =
== Note the final sentence of this article.
"If hiring in today's university were not politically driven, there would be a balance of conservative and liberal professors #REDIRECT [[rather than a preponderance of political liberals on college faculties." in an encyclopaedia article. I hope the author reads it aloud often enough to hear how silly and weak it sounds.
It ought to be removed from the ar</nowiki>ticle. 58.169.87.201 07:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)R Rands Hobart
I agree. If this article is going to include statements about the predominance of liberal professors in the university system, there should, at minimum, be some kind of reference which shows that there actually *is* a predominance of liberal professors, or that the university hiring system *is* fundamentally unfair to moderate or conservative viewpoints. Firebrand126 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Additional Comment - I cannot find in the text of reference 4 any mention of the unfortunate Noth African public health official who was imprisoned for reporting a higher infant mortality than his government was willing to acknowledge. Could the author please check? gpn325 AYYYYYYYYYYY GET SILLLLLLYYYYYYY... PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS SITE!!!!!!Insert non-formatted text here
[edit] Worldview
I have added the {{world}} template to the article as it appears to me to concentrate excessively on the USA, at the expense of coverage of the rest of the world. DuncanHill 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- [1] This might help. --Kenneth M Burke 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Academic Bill of Rights
The information in this subheading seem like an attempt to argue against a certain point of view rather than describing the controversy John196920022001 18:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV corrections in 'Academic Bill of Rights Section'
I made a few minor corrctions to the 'Academic Bill of Rights' section that will, I hope, resolve the NPOV issues. The section has been rewritten to try to advance Horowitz's position by trivializing and misstating the views of his opponents. I've left the section describing Horowitz's position alone. The minor changes I've made are intended to restore his opponents' views, without dismissing them, as the previous text did.Bryan 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] UNESCO and Ex Corde Ecclesiae
The UNESCO has a wonderful definition of Academic Freedom in a Recommendation that has more than 70 arts. with details on all issues regarding Academic Freedom. I think that a reference to this Recommendation should included and detailed, since it has the consensus of all nations that constitute the UNESCO (at present 182 nations; see Official UNESCO Portal) and therefore, a world vision on the subject (a lack that the label "worldwide view" already indicates).
Also, John Paul II wrote Ex Corde Ecclesiae, a Constitution for the Catholic Universities. In this Constitution, the Academic Freedom is strongly sustained.
In the Spanish version of Academic Freedom, additional issues are detailed, including where the idea of AF was originated. Perhaps it could be a good idea to translate the ES version to English (I could do this with some help in style and grammar) and then to join both articles (with consensus of course).
Regarding controversies and other issues, perhaps a link towards the AAUP issues page should be added, among other sites.
Art 27 of the mentioned Recommendation:
"The maintaining of the above international standards should be upheld in the interest of higher education internationally and within the country. To do so, the principle of academic freedom should be scrupulously observed. Higher-education teaching personnel are entitled to the maintaining of academic freedom, that is to say, the right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies. All higher-education teaching personnel should have the right to fulfil their functions without discrimination of any kind and without fear of repression by the state or any other source. Higher-education teaching personnel can effectively do justice to this principle if the environment in which they operate is conducive. This environment can only be conducive in a democratic atmosphere; hence the challenge for all of developing a democratic society."
--Mazorquero (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stronach v. Virginia State University
I added analysis - the holding and reasoning - of this case, as well as a short discussion of its significance. Feel free to edit and update. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Link to a blog of Peter N. Kirstein
I have removed a link[2] to the personal blog of Peter N. Kirstein that was added twice today by 67.167.249.238. I believe that addition of this link to this article is inappropriate. This is a private blog with a fairly tangential relation to the subject of this article, academic freedom. Most of the views expressed there are fairly radical and, more importantly, unrelated to what this article is about. Rather they are expressions of the views of Peter Kirsten on various other political issues and current events. Please do not add this link again unless there is a consensus to do so established at this talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Third opinion: Agreed. Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #11, "Links to blogs and personal web pages" are to be avoided, with exceptions only for people who are absolutely critical to the topic. Furthermore, the blog mentions the author's addition of Wikipedia, which is a type of conflict of interest. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lack of Student Rights
Although faculty members are protected at most major universities in North America, students with unpopular speech are not protected in any way. Orenthal Jus ad Vincula (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Academic freedom and theology
I'm not sure about where to put this, but there have been signficant controversies in the field of theology as to how it relates to academic freedom. Many theologians have literally been punished by the Vatican for excessive imagination and originality with regards to the Magisterium of the Church. This is a debate which plagues major American universities such as Georgetown, Notre-Dame and Catholic University of America. ADM (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose that a religious organization could legitimately expect its employees to either publicly adhere to the faith or to step down. (You'd hardly expect a church to keep employing a preacher that announced he'd "gone off this whole God thing," or, say, an environmentalist organization to keep employing someone that decided climate change was a big hoax.)
- But do you have any sources that say this is an actual problem at Catholic-affiliated universities that is addressed specifically as an issue of academic (i.e., not religious) freedom? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- My impression is that this is less likely to be a problem with older, more prestigious universities, as (i) they probably have more institutional check and balances in place to insulate researchers from theological pressures & (ii) the reputational cost of interference is higher. It's more likely to be a problem in newly-formed institutions where (i) religious leaders (who will often be the actual founders of the institution) are directly involved in its administration & (ii) they have little reputation to lose. As an example, I've seen complaints that Notre Dame is insufficiently orthodoxly Catholic in its academic outlook. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Lead
The lead is, word for word, exactly the same as the first pragraph of the rationale section. Someone might want to either re-right the lead or reright the section intro, because that is not how a lead is supposed to work. The lead should summarize the entire article, not just be copied and pasted from a section of the article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
