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
·郭国汀论出版自由——声援支持《民间》及主编翟明磊
·郭国汀 美國言論自由发展簡史 [1]
·美国的学述自由:Academic Freedom in the USA
·祝愿祖国早日实现真正的自由!新年祝福
·向中国良知记者致敬!
·丹麥主流社會召開中國言論自由研討會
·中共倒行逆施,严控国际媒体报导中国新闻
·关于思想自由与中律网友的对话 /南郭
·性、言论自由、自由战士
·性、言论自由,自由战士与中律网友们的讨论/南郭
·自由之我见
·不自由勿宁死!
·自由万岁!----我为“新青年学会四君子”及“不锈钢老鼠”辩护
·真正的民主自由政体是中国唯一的选择
·自由万岁!新年好!
·三论思想自由
·为自由而战,为正义事业献身,死得其所无尚光荣
·言论自由受到了严重威胁
·思想自由的哲学基础/郭国汀
·冲破精神思想的牢狱--自由要义/郭国汀
·我们为什么要争言论自由权?/南郭
***(38)思想自由与宗教信仰自由
·郭国汀论宗教信仰
·神学与哲学的异同
·宗教的思索
·爱因斯坦信犹太教和贵格教也信上帝
·信神是愚昧吗?!基督教义反人性吗?!谁在大规模屠杀婴儿?!
·爱因斯坦宗教信仰上帝相关言论选译
·爱因斯坦宗教上帝相关言论第二集
· 爱因斯坦原信的准确译法
·大哲大师大思想家大政治家论宗教上帝
·哲学家的前提与基础
·宗教是统治阶级麻醉人民的鸦片吗?
·为什么说爱才是宇宙的本质?
·宗教起源的根源何在?
·圣父圣子圣灵三位一体论的由来
·人民圣殿教真相
·质疑东海一枭良知大法兼驳良知宇宙本体论
·自然科学与宗教哲学灵魂
·读东海兄批判美国神话有感
·郭国汀为上帝信仰辩护
·驳东海之糊涂上帝观
·四海之内皆兄弟人类本是一家人
·推荐陈尔晋先生之《圣灵福音》
·质疑东海君之《良知大法》
·祝愿祖国早日实现真正的自由!
·关于司法公正的讨论郭国汀律师在北大法律信息网上发表了非常危险的错误观点应该予以驳斥!
·中共当局封杀言论为那般?
·六四的记忆
·谈中华文化与道德重建(四)
·中国百年最伟大的文字!
·郭国汀:为刘荻女英雄辩护吾当仁不让!
·只有思想言论出版新闻舆论的真正自由能够救中国!
·只有说真话的民族才有前途
·一个能思想的人才是力量无边的人/南郭
·思想之可贵在于其独立性
·独立思想是最美的
·思想的高度统一是人类社会之大敌
·统一思想之谬误由来已久矣/南郭
·我的心里话--有感于杜导斌先生被捕
***中共专制暴政政治迫害郭国汀律师实录
·郭国汀律师遭遇黑色元宵节
·中共对我的八次政治迫害--在温哥华告别恐惧讨共诉苦座谈会上的发言(上)
·中共暴政对我的八次政治迫害(中)
·中共暴政对我的八次政治迫害(下)
·If You Really Want Control Lock up Their Lawyers
·Anti-communist sentiments landed Chinese lawyer in an asylum
·我的思想认识与保证/郭国汀
·郭国汀律师的[悔罪][悔过]与[乞求]
·郭国汀因言论“违宪”行政处罚听证案代理词
·我推崇的浦志强大律师/郭国汀
·我被中共当局非法剥夺执业资格的真实原因
***(24)《共产主义黑皮书》郭国汀编译
·共产党皆变成杀人犯罪团伙的历史与理论分析
·朝鲜的罪恶与恐怖和秘密:共产党暴政罪恶批判系列之一
·古巴共产极权政权的罪恶:共产党暴政罪恶批判之二
·越南共产党暴政罪恶昭彰:共产党极权暴政罪恶实录之三
·中欧和东南欧共产党暴政的深重罪孽: 共产党极权暴政罪恶批判之四
·埃塞俄比亚共产党政权的罪孽: 共产党政权罪恶实录之五
·安哥拉和莫桑比克共产党政权的血腥暴力:共产党政权罪恶实录之六
·阿富汉共产党暴政罪大恶极:共产党极权暴政罪恶实录之七
·尼加拉瓜共产党政权的罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录之八
·秘鲁共产党的血腥残暴:共产党暴政罪恶实录之九
·虐杀成性的柬普寨共产党暴政:共产党暴政罪恶实录评论系列之十
·波兰共产党政权的罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十一
·苏联共产党暴政的滔天罪行:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十二
·中国共产党极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十三
·论共产党极权暴政的归宿-- 2010年全球支持中國和亞洲民主化斯特拉斯堡大會专稿
·金正日真面目
·韩战真相
***(25)《苏联东欧天鹅绒革命》郭国汀编译
·东欧天鹅绒革命导论
·苏联政治民主革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析系列评论之一
·罗马尼亚暴力革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析系列评论之二
·匈牙利静悄的革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之三
·捷克戏剧性革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之四
·东德和平革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之五
·波兰自我限制的革命:共产党极权暴政崩溃原因分析之六
·罗马尼亚35天革命成功真相
·社会转媒(国际互联网)对阿拉伯之春革命的巨大作用
·郭国汀:苏共政权垮台的根本原因
[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