On Jul 23, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Linda Woolf wrote: > Paul Brandon wrote: >> >> First of all, this is not an academic freedom question since he >> was not fired because of the content of what he was teaching. >> Rather, the issue is whether he was requiring his students to know >> (and answer test questions on) content not specified in the >> syllabus -- a violation of the contract between the student and >> the state. > > Hi Paul, > > I'm sure I'm probably misreading the above, but how is "requiring > his students to know .... content not specified in the syllabus" > not about content?
As you write below: > > Academic freedom was designed to protect faculty in relation to > them teaching, researching, exploring controversial ideas. In this case it does not appear that there was anything controversial about what he was teaching. The only question is whether he was requiring specifics not specified in the syllabus. Some dictionary definitions indicating the common usage of 'academic freedom': > Main Entry: academic freedom > Function: noun > Etymology: translation of German akademische freiheit > 1 : freedom (as of a professor) to teach according to personal > convictions about what is or appears to be the truth without fear > of hindrance, loss of position, or other reprisal > 2 : freedom (as of a student) to learn and inquire fully in any > field of investigation without fear of hindrance, dismissal, or > other reprisal > > © 2005 by Merriam-Webster, Inc > > > From the OED: > academic freedom, the freedom of a teacher to state his opinions > openly without censorship, or without the fear of losing his > position, etc. (cf. G. akademische Freiheit) BTW -- I agree with most of your rant! I just think that this case involved different issues. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
