首页> 外文期刊>Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability >Academic Freedom: Constitutional Myths and Practical Realities
【24h】

Academic Freedom: Constitutional Myths and Practical Realities

机译:学术自由:宪法神话与现实现实

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Academic Freedom is a sacrosanct value on American university campuses. Virtually all research institutions, public and private, have explicitly adopted some form of the American Association of University Professors’ 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure or the organization’s the 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom & Tenure. Because of the near universal acceptance of the principle of academic freedom, there is a common belief that the United States Constitution recognizes academic freedom and, more importantly, confers “special rights” on the persons and institutions of academia. Yet, despite its almost universal acceptance by faculty and administrators and despite its constant use as a constitutional theory whenever faculty and/or administrators dislike a government program, academic freedom is a constitutional myth. The rights of individual academics or of academic institutions are no greater than the rights of individual non-academics or of non-academic agencies or institutions. Put another way, from a constitutional standpoint, there is nothing special about the academic setting. Academic Freedom is no greater, and no lesser, than the constitutional rights of non-academics or ordinary state agencies. Nevertheless, academic freedom must be respected as a practical reality. There are important public policy reasons why university professors should have wide latitude in their research, writing, and teaching efforts. At the same time, institutions should be given a large amount of discretion in determining the scope of their missions. In other words, while academic freedom is not a federal constitutional value, it should be an important public policy consideration and, perhaps, even a state constitutional value. The purpose of this Article is twofold. First, it seeks to demonstrate that academic freedom is a constitutional myth. Institutional academic freedom, the idea that institutions of higher education have a federal constitutional right to be free from outside control, is simply incompatible with constitutional realities. Moreover, professors do not have an individual constitutional right to academic freedom. In short, the rights of professors and the institutions that employ them are no greater than the rights of non-academic employees and non-academic organizations. Second, it attempts to explain why respect for academic freedom is a practical reality.
机译:学术自由是美国大学校园的神圣价值。几乎所有的公立和私立研究机构都明确采用了某种形式的美国大学教授协会的1940年学术自由和终身制原则声明或该组织的1915年学术自由和终身制原则声明。由于几乎普遍接受学术自由的原则,人们普遍认为,美国宪法承认学术自由,更重要的是,赋予学术界人士和学术机构“特殊权利”。然而,尽管学术和管理人员几乎普遍接受它,并且无论何时教师和/或管理人员不喜欢政府课程,它都一直被用作宪法理论,但学术自由却是宪法神话。单个学术人员或学术机构的权利不大于单个非学术机构或非学术机构或组织的权利。换句话说,从宪法的角度来看,学术背景没有什么特别之处。学术自由与非学术机构或普通国家机构的宪法权利相同,也没有不同。然而,必须将学术自由视为现实。大学教授在研究,写作和教学工作上应具有广泛的自由度,这是重要的公共政策原因。同时,在确定其任务范围时,应给予机构很大的酌处权。换句话说,尽管学术自由不是联邦宪法的价值,但它应该是重要的公共政策考虑因素,甚至可能是州宪法价值。本条的目的是双重的。首先,它试图证明学术自由是宪法上的神话。机构学术自由,即高等教育机构拥有不受外部控制的联邦宪法权利的思想,与宪法现实完全不符。而且,教授们没有个人宪法上的学术自由权。简而言之,教授和雇用他们的机构的权利不大于非学术雇员和非学术组织的权利。其次,它试图解释为什么尊重学术自由是现实的现实。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号