Search results

With a focus on Canada, but framed by similar and shared concerns emerging in the United States, this chapter examines the current status of what constitutes and defines academic freedom for academic librarians and the rights and the protections individual, professional academic librarians have with respect to the freedom of speech and expression of their views in speech and writing within and outside of their institutions. It reviews the historical background of academic freedom and librarianship in Canada, academic freedom language in collective agreements, rights legislation in Canada versus the United States as it pertains to academic librarianship, and rights statements supported by Canadian associations in the library field and associations representing members in postsecondary institutions. The implications of academic librarians using the new communication technologies and social media platforms, such as blogs and networking sites, with respect to academic freedom are examined, as well as, an overview of recent attacks on the academic freedom of academic librarians in the United States and Canada. Included in this analysis are the results of a survey of Canadian academic librarians, which examined attitudes about academic freedom, the external and internal factors which have an impact on academic freedom, and the professional use of new communication technologies and social media platforms.

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

This study asks how American institutions of higher education defended the principles of academic freedom (or intellectual autonomy) during the 1950s, even as they became increasingly dependent on the federal government's financial support, their eligibility for which required an oath of political loyalty under the terms of the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Universities whose students or professors resisted the oath faced a dilemma of institutional governance as well as intellectual integrity during the early years of the Cold War.

The study draws on documentary and archival sources, including the Congressional Record, the AAUP Bulletin, student pamphlets, newspapers and other publications of the US federal government, and on secondary sources.

The author finds that the US federal government began to invest heavily in higher education during the 1950s, but financial support was often accompanied by political oversight. Higher education institutions and their professors struggled to reconcile a sense of responsibility for national service with a desire for academic freedom. The findings show how the federal government treated institutions of higher education and dealt with the issue of academic freedom during the Cold War.

This study draws on a large pool of primary sources and previous research to offer new insights into an enduring ideological tension between academic freedom, public service and financial patronage.

Does the classical liberal emphasis on freedom of association provide an intellectual cover for bigotry? We formulate this question in economic terms using James Buchanan’s economic approach to ethics, according to which moral values can be understood as preferences about other people’s behaviors. We discuss two possible market failures associated with freedom of association: inter-group externalities and Schelling-type emergent segregation. We show that the classical liberal position about freedom of association, as elaborated in Buchanan and Tullock’s Calculus of Consent, is fully equipped to deal with the first one, but not with the second. The progressive view that some preferences are so offensive that they should be dismissed rather than engaged or negotiated with can be reframed as an attempt to solve the emergent segregation problem, but it is vulnerable to political economy problems of its own, in particular to an inherent tendency to over-expand the meaning of “bigotry.”

While many see the 1960s as the era of a “rights revolution” in American law, this article looks back from the present moment of conservative legal dominance to better understand the ways in which conservative ideas began to grow during the heyday of legal liberalism. Using recent histories of post-1945 grassroots conservatism, the author argues that conservative rights claims – while often legally questionable – constituted for many a powerful and persuasive understanding of the Constitution. Due to this popular conservative jurisprudence's endurance and influence, its existence in the 1960s forces reconsideration of understandings of the 1960s as the era of the “rights revolution.”

For more than 200 years, intellectual freedom has been a constitutional right of US citizens and the world’s oldest democracy. Librarians in particular have helped to protect this important right by ensuring that all citizens have access to whatever information they need. In her introductory article, Hannelore B. Rader enumerates the many examples of people in other countries who have not had or do not have access to all types of information. A good example is the former German Democratic Republic and the Berlin Wall. There are also examples in the USA where groups of people or individuals have tried and still try to censor information and to limit access to information. In the present electronic environment, intellectual freedom has become an even more complex issue by allowing individuals a forum to easily state their opinions, whether truth or propaganda. Librarians are experiencing a growth in “banned books” and controversies surrounding filtering software in public libraries. However, the ultimate question remains: should intellectual freedom be restricted? Contains an extensive bibliography of intellectual freedom resources compiled and annotated by Terri L. Holtze.

Online learning is becoming increasingly popular in the K-12 school systems for various reasons. This learning platform can provide education to students from various corners of our nation through the use of the Internet and, more importantly, can be accessed through the use of various technologies. As the needs of our schools continue to change and the implementation of online learning continues to develop due to necessity or as an alternate method of educating K-12 students, the awareness of academic freedom that can become challenged or blurred needs special attention. This chapter encourages school systems, administrators, instructors, and online participants to grow more aware of the potential downfalls in this type of learning environment which could likely infringe upon the academic freedom of all participants (both the instructor and students) in online learning environments. This chapter focuses on three topics: the structure of online courses that can impede academic freedom, the impact of language and expression on academic freedom in the online environment, and how the use of technology in online classrooms could potentially encumber the academic freedom of participants. Further, this chapter discusses the importance of being cognizant of the possible academic freedom that can become infringed upon when developing and teaching online courses and ways to avoid these potential problems in the K-12 online classroom.

This chapter focuses on a university case that interprets the variability of academic freedom in terms of faculty’s textbook selection and the need for students’ textbook affordability. Faculty members are participants in a collective bargaining unit and students are members of the student government organization in a state university system. The faculty contract outlines tenets of academic freedom that delineate faculty selection of curriculum (textbooks), instruction, and assessment practices. This chapter highlights the nuances of faculty rights in the name of academic freedom and the students’ need for more affordable textbooks which includes open educational resource materials. In this case, the administration, faculty association, and the student government worked together to create a set of conditions for a more affordable textbook selection. This collaborative process is explored and explained as a set of practices that other colleges and universities can replicate at their institutions.