There are at least 2 associations with the acronym AAUP, the American Association of University Professors and the American Association of University Presses. Academic freedom touches on publishing, but is broader in scope, so both associations likely have statements and experience that overlaps but is not identical. The webpage of the American Association of University Professors on academic freedom can be found here: https://www.aaup.org/our-work/protecting-academic-freedom
Does the association of presses also have a statement? If so does someone have a link? If there are 2 different statements it would be helpful to know which one we are talking about. best, Heather Morrison -------- Original message -------- From: David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> Date: 2018-03-25 2:27 PM (GMT-05:00) To: SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu> Cc: Danny Kingsley <da...@cam.ac.uk>, scholcomm <scholc...@lists.ala.org>, goal@eprints.org Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom Actually the AAUP definition is too vague to be correct, but the meaning of "academic freedom" is not arbitrary. (Concept analysis is my field.) Its normal meaning is something like being able to study, teach and say whatever one likes. Not being told what to do by your employer or funder is not part of it unless it abridges this freedom and open access policies do not do that. Neither would a university taking ownership of your writing that they paid for. Only if they told you what to write or not to white would they be abridging academic freedom. What Danny has correctly pointed to is people using the term "academic freedom" in a nonstandard way as a rhetorical device in a policy debate. This sort of stretching of value-laden language is quite common in policy debates. David Wojick At 04:55 PM 3/24/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: >Universities in the US under copyright law could, if they so chose, to specify >that all faculty writings done in the course of their employment that >relate to >their academic careers are to be regarded as "work made for hire." Under that >regime academic authors would have no rights at all with respect to their >publications. So, yes, copyright could, in theory, be used to take away all >choice. That might not be a matter of content, but I see no reason to restrict >the meaning of "academic freedom" to just the idea that appears in the AAUP's >statement. That's an arbitrary definition. > >Sandy Thatcher > >On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:02 PM David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote: > > > >I cannot speak for Danny but this seems to confuse intellectual freedom, > >which the term "academic freedom" usually means, with freedom from > >regulation. Academics are governed by a great many rules, each of which may > >restrict their freedom in some way. None of this necessarily has anything > >to do with academic freedom. > > > >So I would say that things like contract requirements have nothing to do > >with academic freedom, unless they specify what cannot be said. Copyright > >does not do this. > > > >David > > > >David Wojick > >http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > > >At 03:26 PM 3/24/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: > >>So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to > publish > >>under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to > have > >>input into how and where their writings get translated and how and > where their > >>works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's > meaning > >>and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author > finds > >>abhorrent)? > >> > >>Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why. > >> > >>The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA > >>posting > >>of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a > >>publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.) > >>have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are > >>saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this > problem? > >>That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either? > >> > >>Sandy thatcher > >> > >> > >> > >>On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley <da...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> > > >> >Hi all, > >> > > >> >Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up > >> with this > >>being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is > >>akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the >University’s >s > >>requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in > addition to > >>the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel the > the >academic > >>freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria. > >> >I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, > we have > >>seen a few<https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05> > >>https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05 (relevant bits below) > >> >Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to >n to >being able to > >>choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion > >>about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown >n >into > >>the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement > >>that: > >>“Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by > > >>academics are not consistent with academic freedom.â€Â� But copyright >ownership > >>(other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), > and the > >>place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom. > >> > > >> >Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing > >> requirements. > >>This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real > threat > >>to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and > >>academia. As > >>the UK justice secretary recently said - “People in this country have > >had > >>enough of expertsâ€Â� > >>https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Let’s >s >not > >>even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and > stars. > >> > > >> >Let’s keep focus on the issues that matter. >. > >> > > >> >Danny > >> > > >> >***************************************** > >> >The new scare  threats to ‘Academic Freedom’ >¬â„¢ > >> > > >> >The term ‘Academic Freedom’ comes up a fair bit in discussions >ions >about > >> open > >>access. In his tweet sent during the Researcher to Reader conference*, > one of > >>my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this > >>comment<https://twitter.com/Looptopper/status/968463945190313984>: > >> > > >> >“Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf: > > >> >“I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in > >IHEs.â€Â� > >>(Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.) > >> > > >> >In this blog I’d like to pick up on the ‘Academic >emic >Freedom’ part of the >e > >>comment (which is not Rick’s, he was quoting). >. > >> > > >> >Academic Freedom, according to a summary in the Times Higher > >>Education<https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/defining-acade > mic-freedom> > >>is primarily that “Academic freedom means that both faculty members > and > > >>students can engage in intellectual debate without fear of censorship or > >>retaliationâ€Â�. > >> > > >> >This definition was based on the American Association of University > >> Professors’ (AAUP) Statement on Academic > > >> > Freedom<https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure> > > >> which includes, quite specifically, “full freedom in research and in > > >> the publication of resultsâ€Â�. > >> > > >> >Personally I read that as meaning academics should be allowed to > >> publish, not that they have full freedom in choosing where. > >> > > >> >Rick has since contacted the > >> > AAUP<https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/03/05/open-letter-aaup-faculty-authors-full-freedom-publication/> > > >> to ask for clarification on this topic. Last Friday, he tweeted that the > >> AAUP has declined to revisit the 1940 statement to clarify the > ‘freedom > > >> in publication’ statement in light of evolution of scholarly > > >> communication since 1940. > >> > > >> >The reason why the Academic Freedom/ ‘restricting choice of > > >> publication’ threat(s) is so concerning to the research community has > > >> changed over time. In the past it was essential to be able to publish in > >> specific outlets because colleagues would only read certain publications. > >> Those publications were effectively the academic ‘voice’. However >ver > >> today, with online publication and search engines this argument no longer > >> holds. > >> > > >> >What does matter however is the publication in certain journals is > >> necessary because of the way people are valued and rewarded. The problem > >> is not open access, the problem is the reward system to which we are > >> beholden. And the commercial publishing industry is fully aware of this. > >> > > >> >So let’s be clear. Academic Freedom is about freedom of expression > > >> rather than freedom of publication outlet and ties into Robert > Merton’s > > >> 1942 norms of science > >> <http://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/5424/pdfs/merton_1973.pdf> which are: > >> >§ “communalismâ€Â�: all scientists should have common > ownership of >f > >> scientific goods (intellectual property), to promote collective > >> collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm. > >> >§ universalism: scientific validity is independent of the > >> sociopolitical status/personal attributes of its participants > >> >§ disinterestedness: scientific institutions act for the benefit > of a > >> common scientific enterprise, rather than for the personal gain of > >> individuals within them > >> >§ organized scepticism: scientific claims should be exposed to > >> critical scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and > >> institutional codes of conduct. > >> > > >> >If a publisher is preventing a researcher from publishing in a journal > >> based on their funding or institutional policy rather than the content of > >> the work being submitted then this is entirely in contravention of all of > >> Robert Merton’s norms of science. But the publisher is not, as it > > >> happens, threatening the Academic Freedom of that author. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Dr Danny Kingsley > >> >Deputy Director - Scholarly Communication & Research Services > >> >Head, Office of Scholarly Communication > >> >Cambridge University Library > >> >West Road, CB3 9DR > >> >e: da...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:da...@cam.ac.uk> > >> >p: 01223 747 437 > >> >m: 07711 500 564 > >> >t: @dannykay68 > >> >w: www.osc.cam.ac.uk<http://www.osc.cam.ac.uk/> > >> >b: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk > >> >o: orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939 > >> > > >> >[/Users/dak45/Library/Containers/com.microsoft.Outlook/Data/Library/Ca > che > >> s/Signatures/signature_404167699] > >> > >> > >>Sanford G. Thatcher > >>Frisco, TX 75034 > >>https://scholarsphere.psu.edu > >> > >>"If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) > >> > >>"The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people > >>who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) > >> > >>"Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance > >>with the limitations and incapacities of the human > >>misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce (1906) > > > > > > > > > > >Sanford G. Thatcher >Frisco, TX 75034 >https://scholarsphere.psu.edu > >"If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) > >"The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people >who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) > >"Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance >with the limitations and incapacities of the human >misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce (1906)
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
