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 article problematizes the concept of freedom rooted in liberalism, examining the detention of historian Ilan Pappe by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at Detroit Airport in the United States as an emblematic case study.

The research adopts a methodological triangulation approach, based on an analysis that combines data about the event and theories about the concept of freedom, problematizing authors who focused on the relationship between the individual and society in a liberal context, where individualism serves as the basis for specific conceptions of social relations.

Through the use of authors such as John Stuart Mill and John Locke, as well as the contributions of authors like Norbert Elias, it is argued that true freedom is relational, rooted in social interdependencies and the social construction of an individuality that is not individualistic but intrinsically linked to collective aspects.

Pappe’s case illustrates the tensions between individual freedom and collective interests, highlighting the need to reassess freedom of expression in complex political and social contexts.

This article proposes a more inclusive and interconnected view of human freedom, where individual and collective interests are negotiated within a dynamic web of social relations.

This paper aims to examine the profitability of Islamic banks benefits from economic freedom and its subcomponents.

This study uses a sample of 41 Islamic banks from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Countries selected from 2010–2020. It conducts an empirical approach based on the System Generalized Method of Moments (SGMM).

Overall, economic freedom has a substantial impact on the profitability of Islamic banks. We then investigate the relationship between the subcomponents of economic freedom and the profitability of Islamic banks. The study’s breakdown components suggest that financial and investment freedoms are favorable indicators, while business and monetary freedoms have a negative effect.

This research can serve as a guideline for Islamic bank management in terms of maintaining performance. The results of this study provide policy implications for the government to offer friendly regulations for economic actors to engage in financial transactions by looking at the economic freedom sub-component.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, the study of the role of economic freedom in Islamic banking performance is limited, particularly in the context of OIC Countries.

This study aims to investigate the effects of standardization, accreditation process on academic freedom and quality learning in higher education institutes (HEIs). In addition, this study explores the mediating effects of academic freedom between standardization, accreditation and learning.

To attain the objective, the study uses the theory of self-determination as its theoretical underpinning. The smart PLS-SEM technique is applied for analyzing data.

The results indicate that the accreditation process has a significant negative influence on faculty academic freedom and quality of learning in the sampled HEIs. There is also a significant mediating effect of academic freedom.

There are a few limitations in this study. First, the study considers the faculty members only as respondents. Second, this study only considers the faculty members of private universities as respondents. In the future, public HEIs could also be included in similar studies. Finally, this research has been done in the context of a developing country.

The findings of the study have pervasive implications for the authorities in HEIs. The authorities of HEIs might capitalize on this evidence in formulating the appropriate policy for their HEIs.

As the accreditation process weakens academic freedom and quality learning, accreditation should not be viewed as an institutional development and quality assurance tool. Rather, accreditation ought to allow for amplifying faculty voices, empowering faculty and protecting their rights.

Quantitative analysis on the subject addressed in the current study is scarce. Therefore, this research can be considered valuable for stakeholders of HEIs.

This paper is an examination of the rationale for the policy of supplying public funds for the support of schools run by private organizations. The example of the policy chosen for discussion is a current proposal of the Australian Schools Commission. It is noted that policies of this sort are generally defended by reference to a principle of freedom of choice. However there can be a conflict between freedom of choice for parents and freedom of choice for children in that parents sometimes exercise their freedom to choose schools which will reinforce their own influence and help to bring up their children in a predetermined mould with the same ideological beliefs and personal values as themselves. Public funding of private schools, it is argued, extends the freedom of parents to choose from a range of schools, but the effect is often to limit the opportunity of children to grow up free to make their own ideological and life‐style decisions. It is suggested that if one values this latter type of freedom one ought consistently to support pluralist public schools in which a wider variety of values and points of view are represented.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationships between the Index of Economic Freedom, equity market performance and its volatility.

The paper examines whether the level of economic freedom is significant for a country's stock market performance and volatiling.

Regression results show that adjusted stock returns bear little relationship with economic freedom. On the other hand, economic freedom is associated with lower stock market volatility.

The results imply that a country with greater economic freedom provides investors with better mean‐variance investment efficiency.

Makes the distinction between negative freedom or liberty, which means the absence of constraint and compulsion, and positive freedom, which always implies the power to make one′s will effective to gain access to a chosen alternative. Argues that positive freedom can be used either creatively or destructively. The creative use of positive freedom enhances and improves the economic freedom and economic justice that accrues to other people. The destructive use of positive freedom damages and diminishes the economic freedom and economic justice of others. It follows that the government should intervene in the political and social economy to encourage and to facilitate the creative use and to discourage or prohibit the destructive use of positive freedom.

The paper aims to determine if a country's Economic Freedom Index value has any relationship to the return of the related country specific exchange traded fund.

A total of 36 country specific exchange traded funds were selected for use in this study. The historical returns for 2011, the three‐year period ending in 2011, and the five‐year period ending in 2011 were recorded if available for each exchange traded fund. Each exchange traded fund (ETF) was placed into one of four groups based upon its country's overall Economic Freedom Index value. The range of Economic Index values for each group was the same ones used by the publishers of the Economic Freedom Index. The mean ETF return and standard deviation for 2011, three‐year, and five‐year periods were calculated for each of the four groups. The mean/standard deviation of the Economic Freedom Index and each of its components for 2011, the mean of the three‐year period, and the mean of the five‐year period were calculated for each of the four groups. The degree of statistical significance between the mean returns of the four groups was determined by using ANOVA. The correlation coefficients and the degree of statistical significance were calculated between each component of the index, between each component and the overall index value, and between the overall index value and the ETF returns.

The correlations between the components of the Economic Freedom Index generally tend to be positive and statistically significant. The correlations between the components of the Economic Freedom Index and the Economic Freedom Index tend to be positive and statistically significant. The correlation between the mean ETF returns of the various groups and the value of the mean Economic Freedom Index tends to be mixed. There appears to be no statistical significance of the difference between the mean ETF returns of each group and the mean overall score of the Economic Freedom Index for that group. For the year 2011 the level of significance was 0.103, for the three‐year period the level of significance was 0.541, and for the five‐year period the level of significance was 0.132. The differences within each group are more than the differences between the groups. The value of the Economic Freedom Index does not appear to correlate with the return of the country specific exchange traded fund.

The paper relates a country's environment for conducting business as represented by its Economic Freedom Index to the equity returns of firms in that country. The results of this study would be of interest to those individuals or institutions making investment decisions regarding country specific exchange traded funds. If a positive correlation exists between the index value and the return of the exchange traded fund, this information could improve the prediction of country specific exchange traded fund returns.

This study examines the function of total reserves in light of the relationship between the economic freedom index and the corruption perception index during the COVID-19 period over countries.

This analysis encompasses a sample of 102 nations, spanning the time period from 2020 to 2021, and draws data from several sources. By employing a random effects model, we are able to adequately address the potential influence of year-specific factors, including the effects of COVID-19, as well as country-specific disparities. This approach allows for a comprehensive examination of our primary variables, assuring a nuanced study.

The findings indicate that when economic freedom and reserves are examined separately, they tend to promote corruption. However, when these factors are studied together, they have a complementary effect in reducing corruption. The impact of the COVID-19 period further confirms the relationship, highlighting its substantial influence on the interplay between economic freedom, reserves, and corruption.

The time frame spanning just two years and the sample limited to 102 nations may affect the generalizability of the findings. Therefore, there is a clear need for additional research to facilitate more comprehensive generalizations.

This study is notable for its distinctive examination of the function of Total Reserves in light of the association between the economic freedom index and the corruption perception index. Within the framework of the challenging COVID-19 era, this investigation offers novel perspectives on the intricate dynamics among economic freedom, reserves, and corruption perceptions.

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.