Academic Senate
2007-2008 |
 |
Academic Freedom
e-mail comments from Dave Clemens, after our May 17,
2007 meeting
As chair of the Academic Senate Academic Freedom
Committee, I want to thank the members of the Senate for their patience and
dedication in carefully reading the proposed policy on academic freedom.
It was gratifying to hear so much thoughtful comprehension from so many
different members of the MPC family. As you know, I have 30 years direct
experience in the academic freedom arena, but if one is new to the issues,
history, and lingo, it can be quite daunting and frustrating. That so many
members of the Senate had studied and grasped the protections afforded by the
intricacies of the academic freedom proposal is a tribute to your diligence.
Except for two members of the Senate, we on the
committee heard broad consensus approving of the policy as written along with
some desire for minor changes (I’m thinking of Alan’s point about “objectivity”
and the sentence on student rights, and Laurie’s point about her need to address
attitudes, and two or three questions about dividing disciplines in [Paragraph
7]). It remains unclear how these minor changes are to be effected—I’m not
sure whether the committee has any further role in this process. However,
let me address three concerns I heard:
-
The complaint that the policy assumes a
conflict between academic freedom and student learning outcomes is simply
misplaced. The fact that after six years there is still no fixed definition
of SLOs remains a matter of concern for the Senate, I would think, but the
academic freedom policy itself is carefully designed to avoid
conflict by insuring that SLOs will not be misused or used
inappropriately. The policy in no way interferes with the legitimate and
rational use of SLOs.
-
Two members of the Senate expressed
disapproval of the “big words” and syntax used in the policy and recommended
making the wording more “direct and straightforward.” To do so, I’m afraid,
would be a serious mistake as it would vitiate the policy and enfeeble the
protection it offers. Based on our study, we employed the terms in the
existing vocabulary of academic freedom policies and academic freedom
litigation. To substitute milder or less exact terms is to make
yourself vulnerable to those who do employ these terms. You place
yourself at their mercy. Do realize that this policy protects students but
in a way that discourages grievances and lawsuits from them and gives the
college solid ground on which to stand while defending itself. And as the
Senate’s student representative astutely noted, the idea of this policy is
to raise up, not drag down, those who contemplate it seriously. If in the
process one acquires new vocabulary, that’s a good thing. I would
also note that the AAUP Declaration runs over 6,000 words, the AAUP
Statement over 3,000 words while the MPC proposal is just over 1,200 words.
-
The concept of dividing disciplines was
misunderstood, I think, by a couple of Senate members. The point of
[Paragraph 7], as discussed in the Report, is to tailor academic freedom so
that Art may offer Life Drawing and Sociology may employ Socratic dialogue
while Astronomy and Geology are free to not engage creationism and
abiotic oil production if the instructor chooses not to. The
operative words are “may” and “choose.” The committee has no
problem editing out the disciplines’ names if that is the pleasure of the
Senate.
I regret that nothing more definitive came out of
yesterday’s meeting because we no longer had a quorum, but the supportive and
constructive comments you all made make me confident that we will have a strong,
effective academic freedom policy of which we can all feel proud. I have
attached the latest version of the policy for you—the only change is the
replacement of [Paragraph 6] with the reworded [Paragraph 6] suggested by Alan
yesterday since the committee has not been authorized to make any other
suggested changes.
Happy weekend!
--Dave