The University Senate of
POLICY ON ACADEMIC
FREEDOM
(Proposal 17-94)
(Proposal
30-95)
Senate Policy 106.1
a. 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.
b. 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
[2]. 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. [3]
c. 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 strive to 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.
[4]
This policy statement is drawn from the 1940 Statement
of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, with 1970 Interpretive Comments,
developed by the American Association of University Professors.
The numerical references in brackets contained within the text connect it to the 1970 interpretive comments. These comments, while not included in the Michigan Technological University Policy Statement on Academic Freedom, are understood to be an essential part of the statement. They provide the primary guidance in understanding the application of the basic statement on Academic Freedom.
APPENDIX
1940 INTERPRETATIONS
At the conference of representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges on November 7-8, 1940, the following interpretations of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure were agreed upon:
1970 INTERPRETIVE COMMENTS
Following extensive discussions on the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with leading educational associations and with individual faculty members and administrators, a joint committee of the AAUP and the Association of American Colleges met during 1969 to reevaluate this key policy statement. On the basis of the comments received, and the discussions that ensued, the joint committee felt the preferable approach was to formulate interpretations of the Statement in terms of the experience gained in implementing and applying the Statement for over thirty years and of adapting it to current needs.
The committee submitted to the two associations for their consideration the following "Interpretive Comments." These interpretations were adopted by the Council of the American Association of University Professors in April 1970 and endorsed by the Fifty-sixth Annual Meeting as Association policy.
In the thirty years since their promulgation, the principles of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure have undergone a substantial amount of refinement. This has evolved through a variety of processes, including customary acceptance, understandings mutually arrived at between institutions and professors or their representatives, investigations and reports by the American Association of University Professors, and formulations of statements by that association either alone or in conjunction with the Association of American Colleges. These comments represent the attempt of the two associations, as the original sponsors of the 1940 Statement, to formulate the most important of these refinements. Their incorporation here as Interpretive Comments is based upon the premise that the 1940 Statement is not a static code but a fundamental document designed to set a framework of norms to guide adaptations to changing times and circumstances.
Also, there have been relevant developments in the law itself reflecting a growing insistence by the courts on due process within the academic community which parallels the essential concepts of the 1940 Statement; particularly relevant is the identification by the Supreme Court of academic freedom as a right protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court said in Keyishian v. Board of Regents 385 U.S. 589 (1967), "Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom."
The numbers refer to the desginated portion of the 1940 Statement on which interpretive comment is made.
Paragraph (c) of the 1940 Statement should also be interpreted in keeping with the 1964 "Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances: (AAUP Bulletin 51 [1965]: 29), which states inter alia: "The controlling principle is that a faculty member's expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member's unfitness for his or her position. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member's fitness for the position. Moreover, a final decision should take into account the faculty member's entire record as a teacher and scholar."
Paragraph V of the Statement on Professional Ethics also deals with the nature of the "special obligations" of the teacher. The paragraph reads as follows:
Both the protection of academic freedom and
the requirements of academic responsibility apply not only to the full-time
probationary as well as to the tenured teacher, but also to all others, such
as part-time faculty and teaching assistants, who exercise teaching responsibilties.
Approved by the Senate: 3 May 1995
Senate Approved Provost Recommended Changes: 31 January 1998
Transmitted to Administration: 4 February 1998