百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[美国的学述自由:Academic Freedom in the USA]
郭国汀律师专栏
·中共迫害高智晟亲人丧心病狂,中共党魁胡锦涛难辞其咎
·绝食维权抗暴日记
·郭国汀 漠视大陆维权是一种自杀行为
·英雄伟人与超人高智晟
·告全体中国律师及法律人书----闻高智晟被秘密绑架感言
·郭国汀: 高智晟遭秘密绑架可能成为中共灭亡的导火索
·给真正的中国女人的公开信
·郭国汀:驳刘荻的非理性投射说
·决不与中共专制暴政同流合污--------第29个全球接力绝食抗暴日记 郭国汀
·一部见证当代中国社会现实的伟大纪实作品--序高智晟《中国民间企业维权第一案》
·郭国汀呼吁国际重视高智晟妻儿的遭遇
·将接力绝食抗暴运动进行至最后胜利
·我为中华律师英雄杨在新喝彩 郭国汀
·郭国汀向老戚致敬
·万众一心,众志成城——全球万人同步绝食抗暴日记 郭国汀
·责令中共当局立即无条件释放兰州大学学生刘西峰!郭国汀
·加拿大著名人权律师ANSLEY支持声援全球绝食抗暴运动的声明
·郭国汀:中国律师应当向高智晟,浦志强律师学习!
***(45)人权研究
***中国人权律师基金会
·郭国汀推荐黄金秋竞选[第三届中国自由文化运动政论奖]推荐函
·郭国汀提名陈泱潮为2009中国自由文化奖之文化成就奖获奖候选人
·郭国汀提名张博树为2009中国自由文化奖之法学奖获奖候选人
·推荐郭国汀先生参选2009年台湾民主人权奖书
·letter of recommendation of Guoting for 2008 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award
·提名郭國汀律師作為[第三屆亞洲民主與人權獎]候選人的推薦函
·支持郭国汀律师负责组建中国人权律师基金会
·第二届《中国自由文化奖》评奖程序的修改建议
·郭国汀提名张鉴康律师作为第二届自由文化奖之人权奖候选人
·关于提名陈泱潮竞选[中国自由文化运动文化成就奖]推荐函
·推荐郭国汀先生参选第三届「亞洲民主人權獎」推荐书
·Letter of recommendation of Guoting Guo for 2008 The Third Asian Democracy and Human Rights Award
***(46)关注西藏新疆少数民族人权
·解决西藏问题的最佳方案--宪政联邦体制
·中共政权对藏民族所犯下的罪恶
·西藏自古以来属于中国吗?--西藏与中国关系简史
·什么是西藏问题?
·达赖啦嘛论解决西藏问题的原则
·中共宗教灭绝政策的实质是从精神心灵上扼杀藏人
·西藏自古以来属于中国吗?
·西藏问题的实质
·自由法治宪政民主联邦体制是解决西藏问题的最佳方案
·达赖啦嘛最常使用的词汇
·达赖啦嘛的使命与梦想
·达赖啦嘛论西藏问题的实质
·达赖啦嘛论西藏文明文化和历史
·达赖啦嘛论解决西问题的原则
·达赖啦嘛论爱同情怜悯与慈悲
·达赖啦嘛论藏传佛教的价值
·是中共暴政而非汉族奴役迫害藏民族!
·新疆暴亂是中共流氓暴政故意利用民族茅盾转嫁统治危机人为泡制的惨案
·坚决支持藏民维民争自由,平等,人权,民主的英勇抗暴运动
·从图片新闻看达赖喇嘛的国际影响力
·达赖喇嘛语录郭国汀译
·蜡烛与阳光争辉------从温家宝批达赖喇嘛说开去
·达赖喇嘛代表流亡政府及全体藏民与中国政府和平谈判理所当然----兼与王希哲兄商榷
·三一四西藏暴乱事件的真相
·布什总统再度敦促中国(中共)与达赖喇嘛对话
·达赖喇嘛抵美国西图参加为期五天的慈善的科学基础大会,据称150000门票全部售出
·布什总统出席奥运开幕式已不确定
·达赖喇嘛今天重申不抵制奥运会
·布什总统决意出席奥运开幕式并非仅由于他性格顽固
***(47)人权律师法律实务
·郭国汀:中国人没有基本人权——2008年加拿大国会中国人权研讨会专稿
·我为何从海事律师转向人权律师?
·盛雪专访郭国汀从海事律师转变成人权律师的心路历程
·我从海事律师转变成人权律师的思想根源
·郭国汀律师受中共政治迫害的直接原因
·我从海事律师转变成人权律师的心路历程
·成为一名人权律师!---郭国汀律师专访
·一个中国人权律师的真实故事
·世界人权日感言/郭国汀
·人权漫谈/南郭
·人权佳话
·保障人权律师的基本人权刻不容缓
·不敢或不愿为法轮功作无罪辩护的律师,不是真正的人权律师!
·人权律师辩护律师必读之公正审判指南(英文)
·我为什么推崇中国人权律师浦志强?
·巴黎律师公会采访中国人权律师郭国汀
·
·人权律师的职责与使命----驳李建强关于严正学力虹案件的声明
·驳斥刘路有关六四屠城的荒唐谬论
·李建强律师与郭国汀律师的公开论战
·李建强与郭国汀律师的论战之二
·英雄多多益善!郭国汀
·英雄辈出的时代刘路千万别走错路 郭国汀
·答康平伙计关于郭律师与李建强之争
·揭穿刘荻的画皮----南郭与[三刘]之争不属刘家私事而是中国民主运动的公事
·刘荻的灵魂竟是如此[美丽] !
·废除或修改煽动颠覆国家政权罪思想监狱中国律师集体第一议案的诞生
·团结起来共同对敌 答刘路先生的公开信
·敦促刘路公开辩污的公开函
·敦促刘路公开辩污的最后通牒
·我为法轮功抗辩——答刘路质询函
***自由人权宪政共和民主之路争论
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
美国的学述自由:Academic Freedom in the USA

Academic Freedom in the USA
   by Ronald B. Standler
   Table of Contents
   Introduction

   History of academic freedom
   Two kinds of academic freedom
   Judicial recognition of academic freedom
   Criticism of legal basis for academic freedom in First Amendment
    Is the First Amendment a proper basis for Academic Freedom?
    special privileges in egalitarian democracy
   No protection for wayward professor
   Academic freedom does not apply to ...
   Academic Abstention
   Is Academic Freedom different in different disciplines?
   Conclusion
   Short bibliography
   
   Introduction
   The conventional wisdom, including statements by the U.S. Supreme Court, has academic freedom as a legal right, derived from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that this conventional wisdom is wrong.
   I am not the only attorney holding this unconventional view. One scholarly article on academic freedom in the USA, written by a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, began:
    The First Amendment protects academic freedom. This simple proposition stands explicit or implicit in numerous judicial opinions, often proclaimed in fervid rhetoric. Attempts to understand the scope and foundation of a constitutional guarantee of academic freedom, however, generally result in paradox or confusion. The cases, shorn of panegyrics(speech praising someone), are inconclusive, the promise of rhetoric reproached by the ambiguous realities of academic life.
    The problems are fundamental: There has been no adequate analysis of what academic freedom the Constitution protects or of why it protects it. Lacking definition or guiding principle, the doctrine floats in law, picking up decisions as a hull does barnacles.
   J. Peter Byrne, "Academic Freedom", 99 Yale Law Journal 251, 252-253 (1989).
   Academic freedom is an amorphous(having no fexed form or shape) quasi-legal concept that is neither precisely defined nor convincingly justified from legal principles. These two defects make the law of academic freedom difficult to understand. I have no doubt that academic freedom is important and desirable. My concern is that professors in the USA may believe that academic freedom is a valid legal doctrine with power and vitality, when – in fact – it is often only empty rhetoric by professors and judges.
   In practice, the notion of academic freedom is invoked to justify statements by faculty that offend politicians, religious leaders, corporate executives, parents of students, and citizens. Such offense is easy to understand, given that professors are often intellectual risk-takers, ahead of their time, and loyal to Truth – wherever it may lead and whoever it may offend – instead of loyal to money, political or corporate power, and dogma(important belief that people are expected to accept without reasoning).
   
   History of academic freedom
   In medieval Europe, universities were self-governing enclaves that were outside the civil law. Some of this isolation survives today in poorly articulated views that universities are somehow immune(unable to be harmed because of special qualities in oneself) from law. Perhaps the fact that large universities have their own police department gives some support to the notion of independence. Regardless of whatever myths may circulate in academic communities, the same law applies to colleges and universities in the USA that applies to people in other settings in the USA. See Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972)("At the outset we note that state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment.")
   The legal concept of academic freedom originated in Germany around 1850, so it is not an ancient concept. The Prussian Constitution of 1850 declared that "science and its teaching shall be free." In Germany, academic freedom is known as Lehrfreiheit – the right of faculty to teach on any subject. There are two related concepts in Germany: (1) Freiheit der Wissenschaft, freedom of scientific research, and (2) Lernfreiheit, the right of students to attend any lectures, and the absence of class roll calls. This kind of academic freedom has never been a major issue in the USA, owing to differences between the two countries:
   • In Germany, there are no required classes for university students, and just one examination to obtain the Diplom degree.
   In the USA, curriculum is rigidly controlled by faculty, and students must attend all of the required classes and a minimum number of "elective" classes, to qualify for a degree. There is typically at least one examination in every class in the USA.
   • The German constitution of 23 May 1949, Art. 7 explicitly declares that education and all teaching is under the control of the Federal Education Minister. The German constitution of 23 May 1949, Art. 5, cl. 3 explicitly mentions that "Art and science, research and teaching are free."
   In the USA, the federal constitution does not mention education; only a few state constitutions (e.g., California and Michigan) mention education.
   Americans during the 1800's who desired a doctoral degree typically went to Europe and studied at a university in England, France, or Germany. In 1876, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore was founded along the design of German universities at Göttingen and Berlin, which emphasized scholarly research by professors. Other universities in the USA were soon founded along the same lines: for example, the University of Chicago in 1890 and the California Institute of Technology in 1891.
   During this time, older American institutions of higher education (e.g., Harvard, Princeton) evolved to include the German idea of a university as a place for scholarly research, as well as teaching of undergraduates. In 1915, the newly formed American Association of University Professors issued their first report on academic freedom.
   
   Two kinds of academic freedom
   There are two distinctly different kinds of academic freedom, which should have distinct names:
   1. Individual academic freedom protects an individual professor.
   2. Institutional academic freedom protects universities from interference by government, a right that applies to the community of scholars, not to individual faculty.
   The following people have commented on the problem of using "academic freedom" to mean two different concepts.
   1. Judge Posner, writing for the unanimous panel of three judges in Piarowski v. Illinois Community College, 759 F.2d 625, 629 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1007.
   2. Prof. Walter P. Metzger, 66 Texas Law Review 1265, 1266-67, 1314 (1988).
   3. Prof. J. Peter Byrne, 99 Yale Law Journal 251, 255, 257 (1989).
   Individual Academic Freedom
   A general expression of individual academic freedom is included in the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure" by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). This Statement by the AAUP has no legal effect, but the AAUP publicly censures colleges and universities that they believe have violated academic freedom. However, all major colleges and universities have adopted this Statement, or a variation of this Statement, which is contained in the faculty policy manual of each college or university, and is incorporated by reference in the employment contract between the university and each individual faculty member.
   In many cases, individual academic freedom is simply part of academic tradition – the routine way that faculty committees, department chairmen, and deans operate when they make judgments about who to hire, who to promote, who gets tenure(the right to stay in a job without needing to have a new contract of employment), who gets larger salary increases, and who gets their employment terminated.
   ASIDE: In my ten years as a professor, the most egregious(especially and noticeably bad;blatant) violations of academic freedom that I saw were committed by department chairmen who had spent all of their previous professional career as an employee of either industry or a government laboratory: these chairmen had neither understanding nor respect for academic freedom, they saw professors as mere employees who they rigidly managed.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场