Search results

The First Amendment so states,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (United Nations, 2006)

Within the confines of this law are the foundational touchstones of our democracy identifying the protection of five critical freedoms of religion, press, speech, assembly and the freedom to petition to the government. Many institutions of higher education and spheres of academe outline academic freedom as the right of a scholar to express ideas without risk of potential professional consequence. Within that domain of the freedom to express and share information, the American Library Association defines intellectual freedom as,

the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.

In a time where democratic freedoms are being challenged, the concepts of intellectual freedom and academic freedom require examination as key tenets of our democracy to be upheld, celebrated and honored. This chapter will critique and consider how institutions, organizations and entities have a keen ability to be empowered and disempowered by the appropriate execution or the lack of execution of both the tenets of intellectual and academic freedoms. This chapter will deconstruct both concepts through the lens of a social justice framework, thereby posing the question how challenging key democratic elements of the citizenry to express and share ideas, inform and responsibly disseminate ideas handicaps both the will and core of a democracy to thrive. This chapter will highlight how communities expand and narrow the domains of intellectual and academic freedom, from within the United States exploring the role of the Constitution, yet also infusing a global perspective. This chapter will examine what both academic and intellectual freedoms look like outside of the United States, and how theoretically and tangibly the concepts are applied. This chapter explores the application of the core tenets of intellectual and academic freedoms through a social justice framework and the introduction of reframing the consideration of both freedoms as human rights. A social justice framework incorporates the principle of fair and impartial treatment being afforded and entitled to all members of the citizenry. Seemingly to oppose and prevent these modes of expression and foundational elements of freedom both obstruct the principles of social justice and disrupt a democracy.

This chapter discusses the challenges of safeguarding academic freedom during leadership transitions and organizational change in universities. Examples from a large public university illustrate current challenges and provide perspective for proactive measures to protect academic freedom. While the context and details are unique to the institution featured in the chapter, the lessons gleaned from each vignette offer valuable insight to faculty and university leaders who are motivated to better understand and uphold the principles of academic freedom and, more broadly, protected speech with higher education. To support academic leaders in achieving these goals, a conceptual framework for shared leadership through shared governance to support academic freedom is presented. The chapter concludes with recommendations for leveraging shared leadership to foster a university culture that supports of academic freedom.

This study develops a structural model to examine the relationships among subjective perception of health, subjective perception of economic and social support, the perceived freedom in leisure, leisure satisfaction, and the well-being of elders. The subject of this study is the elderly who participated in leisure activities at Evergreen Academy in Kaohsiung City. Convenience sampling and quota sampling are adopted. 1,200 self-administered questionnaires are distributed, and 535 are valid, with a response rate of 45%. The results of this study show that subjective perception of health will positively affect perceived freedom in leisure; subjective perception of economics will positively affect perceived freedom in leisure and well-being; social support will positively affect perceived freedom in leisure, leisure satisfaction, and well-being; perceived freedom in leisure will positively affect leisure satisfaction and well-being; leisure satisfaction will positively affect well-being. There are significant differences in the subjective perception of economic and social support between male and female elders. There are significant differences in the subjective perception of economic, leisure satisfaction, and well-being among those with different education levels.

Academic freedom is a complicated issue for military service academies. As accredited institutions of higher learning, academic freedom is valued. At the same time, the academies are subject to regulations that guide speech and publishing by the Department of Defense. This chapter explores the balance between maintaining academic freedom while upholding the discipline contained in regulations concerning free speech. The chapter concludes with a view to the future and opportunities for further research.

This chapter focuses on academic freedom in the experiences of Black/African American doctoral students and presents an examination of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students (https://www.aaup.org/report/joint-statement-rights-and-freedoms-students) based on research and practice on the marginalized doctoral student experience. Discussion addresses AAUP policy Statements: Section I (freedom of access to higher education), Section II (freedom of expression in the classroom), and Section III (freedom of inquiry and expression). The purpose of this work is to increase awareness of issues serving as barriers to student rights and freedoms related to self-expression, cultural bias, and student activism at the doctoral level. Strategies that disrupt, minimize, and/or eradicate barriers to actively maintain and pursue student rights and freedoms will be addressed to emphasize their importance to supporting and/or hindering academic success, doctoral degree completion, and creating/sustaining pathways of transition into the career pathways.

The data on which this essay is based were originally collected as part of a larger study investigating Academic Freedom and Commercialisation in Australian Universities (see Kayrooz, Kinnear, & Preston, 2001). A web-based questionnaire survey of social scientists across 12 universities in Australia was completed by 165 respondents (representing a 20% response rate). At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate whether they would be willing to engage in a follow-up telephone interview. Ten of those who indicated their willingness to be interviewed were contacted, and all agreed to the interview.

Scholarly excellence in higher education depends in part on the ability of members of the academic community to be able to travel abroad, to return home and to move freely within a state for the purposes of study, teaching and research. Articles 12 and 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 protect the right to freedom of movement and the right of aliens not to be arbitrarily expelled from a state, respectively. Any person may rely on these provisions to claim various stated entitlements related to freedom of movement. International human rights law does not, however, offer (clear) protection where an alien wishes to enter a state. It appears, however, that Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, prohibiting discrimination on the ground of, amongst other things, ‘political or other opinion’, may be relied on to prevent states from restricting the entry of scholars solely on the basis of the academic opinions they hold or views they have expressed. The right to freedom of movement of scholars – conceived as a right to academic mobility – forms a part of the right to academic freedom. International human rights law does not accord express protection to this right. Whereas the right to freedom of opinion and expression in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may be relied on to protect a multitude of facets covered by the right to academic freedom, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 on the right to education may, in fact, be seen to constitute a complete locus for the right to academic freedom.

In spite of the extensive literature on the regulation of air transport services, until the development of the Quantitative Air Services Agreements Review (QUASAR) methodology no systematic review existed of the degree of liberalization granted through air services agreements. The chapter lays out QUASARs key features, and presents the main results its application has generated. It then elaborates on how the methodology could be further refined and extended to other segments of the air transport industry yet uncovered. Based on QUASAR, the chapter critically evaluates some commonly held beliefs about the liberalization of international passenger transport and then moves on to explore the technical feasibility of creating a liberal multilateral regime for air transport services. QUASAR has demonstrated that, although the air transport sector has experienced some liberalization over the past few years, this has been, overall, rather marginal. The skies are not truly open.

Robert Hauptman first raised awareness about the ethical issues of reference service in 1976. Hauptman, a library school student at the time, did a study on the culpability, or lack thereof, in reference service provided by librarians. In his study, Hauptman posed as a library patron seeking potentially dangerous information. The behavior examined was how librarians respond to the request for material on how to build a bomb that would be powerful enough to blow up a house. Hauptman tried to present himself as a person of questionable character. He used six public and seven academic libraries in this study. Hauptman first made sure that he was speaking to the reference librarian. He then requested information for the construction of a small explosive, requesting specifically the chemical properties of cordite. He then asked for information on the potency of such an explosive, whether or not it could blow up a suburban house (Hauptman, Wilson Library Bulletin, 1976, p. 626).